BILL OF PARTICULARS-Continued.
the other party can take advantage of this upon the trial.
d-It mentioning dates, it is not necessary that the exact
date shall be given, but it may be stated as "on or about a
certain day," and in that case the plaintiff is not restricted
to proof of that special day. The question to be determined
at the trial in each case is whether the proof is so variant
from the date alleged as to mislead the opposite party.
e-A bill of particulars is not required to contain all of the
essentials of a special declaration. It is neither given nor
required for the purpose of disclosing to an adverse party
the proof relied on to substantiate the same; nor is it the
office of such bill to furnish the defendant facts whereon to
found an affirmative defense. It need not state the grounds
on which the plaintiff claims, but only the items and
particulars. Id. 394.
1. Complainant was induced to sign two promissory notes as
surety for the maker under such circumstances as prevented
their enforcement except in the hands of an innocent holder,
which notes were received and held by a bank as additional
security to the maker's dishonored note. And it is held that
the bank parted with no value, and is not an innocent
holder of the notes, and that equity will enjoin their collec-
tion. Henriques v. Ypsilanti Savings Bank, 168.
2. A banking firm received from a customer the promissory
note of a third person, not yet due, as collateral security for
a loan made to the customer, which was not evidenced by
any writing. Nine days afterwards, and after the note was
due, the customer gave the bankers his note for the amount
of the loan, drawing interest at ten per cent., and the
bankers continued to hold the first note as collateral to the
second note, but without the consent of the maker, which
latter holding is held to be subject to any defenses which
existed between the maker of the note and the customer.
City Bank of Dowagiac v. Dill, 549.
See LAND CONTRACT; PARTNERSHIP (1, 5); PLEADING (1).
BILL TO SET ASIDE DEED-See EQUITY.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS-See TAXES (7, 8).
BOHEMIAN OAT NOTE-See PLEADING (1).
BONDS-See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (1).
BURDEN OF PROOF-See LOGS AND LOGGING (2).
CERTIFICATE-See TAXES (11).
CERTIORARI-See PRACTICE IN CIRCUIT COURT (4).
CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS-See TAXES (7).
CHARGE TO JURY-See DAMAGES (7); PRACTICE IN SUPREME
COURT (1, 3).
CHARTER OF GRAND RAPIDS-See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (12,
13); MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (3, 5).
1. A resident of Nebraska gave a chattel mortgage to a resident
of the same state, who filed it under the law of that state,
and left the property in the possession of the mortgagor, who
brought it to Michigan without the knowledge or consent of
the owner of the mortgage, where it was attached at the suit
of the mortgagor's creditors. And it is held that the attach-
ment lien must prevail over that of the mortgage. Corbett
v. Littlefield, 30.
2. How. Stat. § 6193, providing for the filing of chattel mort-
gages, applies only to mortgages of goods and chattels which
are capable of delivery, and not to an assignment of open
accounts. Preston National Bank v. Smith Middlings Puri-
fier Co., 364.
3. The lien of a chattel mortgage covering all additions to and
substitutes for the property described in the mortgage will
not attach to goods ordered by the mortgagor before giving
the mortgage, and which never actually came into his
possession as owner. Kingman & Co. v. Denison, 608.
See CORPORATIONS; REPLEVIN (4, 5).
CIRCUIT JUDGES-See PRACTICE IN CIRCUIT Court (1, 4).
CIRCUIT JUDGE OF KENT COUNTY-See CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW (4-6).
COMPENSATION-See PANTNERSHIP (4).
COMPROMISE-See EVIDENCE (14).
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS.
1. Where a jury in condemnation proceedings disagree, and
are discharged, the members of the panel are disqualified to
sit as jurors in new proceedings to condemn the same land
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS-Continued.
for the purposes mentioned in the first petition. Hester v.
Chambers, 562.
2. Where in such a case a juror, upon his examination as to
his qualifications, denied having formed or expressed an
opinion as to the necessity of taking the land for public use,
and the contesting party was ignorant of his having acted
as a member of the former panel, and of the submission of
the question of such necessity to him as a member thereof,
until after the second proceedings were ended, he is entitled
to have the verdict set aside and to a new trial. Id.
See CORPORATIONS; COSTS (3).
CONDITIONAL SALE-See SALE (3).
A condition following the grant of a life-estate in land, pro-
hibiting its conveyance by the grantee, is held in this case
to be a condition subsequent, if effectual for any purpose, and
to defeat the estate to which it is annexed only at the
election of him who has a right to enforce it. Hayward v.
Kinney, 591.
1. The tax law of 1889 (Act No. 195) is held to be constitu-
tional. Auditor General v. Sloman, 118.
2. The Court decline to pass upon the question of the constitu-
tionality of section 24, tit. 5, Act No. 455, Local Acts of
1889, authorizing the city of Saginaw to issue its bonds for
the purpose of raising money with which to purchase a site
and erect thereon a city hall in said city, and making it the
duty of the common council to proceed immediately to pro-
cure such site, and construct said city hall within designated
boundaries as to location, complainants not being in a position
to raise such constitutional question. Carlisle v. City of
Saginaw, 134.
3. Act No. 254, Laws of 1889, which provides for cumulative
voting in districts entitled to more than one Representative
in the State Legislature, is unconstitutional. Maynard v.
Board of Canvassers, 228.
4. It was the plain intent of the constitutional amendment of
1889, empowering the Legislature to provide for the election
of more than one circuit judge in the judicial circuit com-
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.
posed of the county of Kent, to place such additional judge
under the provisions of the Constitution and laws of the
State applicable to existing circuit judges, and that his term
of office should be limited and governed by the Constitution,
and that his successor should be chosen at the same time and
in the same manner as the other circuit judges. Attorney
General v. Burch, 408.
5. It was competent for the Legislature, at once upon the
adoption of the amendment, to create the office of such
additional circuit judge, and to prescribe his duties, which
office became vacant as soon as created, whether the Legis-
lature so declared or not, and which vacancy the Legislature
had the power to authorize the Governor to fill provisionally,
by appointment, until the next general election. Id.
6. Act No. 97, Laws of 1889, creating an additional circuit
judge in the judicial circuit composed of the county of Kent,
and declaring the office vacant, and providing for the filling
of such vacancy by appointment by the Governor, in so far
as it undertakes to fix the term of the appointee, and to
declare that it shall not expire until December 31, 1893, is
unconstitutional, his constitutional term only extending to the
next general election, or until his successor was elected and
qualified. Id.
7. Under a resolution of the State Senate dispensing with the
reading of the daily journal for the session, and authorizing
the secretary to make all necessary corrections in the journal
from day to day, he is held authorized to correct an entry
which by mistake stated that the vote taken on the passage
of a bill was reconsidered, by stating at the close of the
journal, and on the page before his certificate, under the
head of "Errata in the Record of Bills," that the vote
reconsidered was that by which the Senate had concurred in
certain House amendments to the bill, which correction
might be so made at any time prior to the final adjourn-
ment. Id.
8. In such a case, where it does not affirmatively appear at
what time the secretary made the correction, it will be pre-
sumed to have been made on or before the date of his cer-
tificate, and, if the final adjournment was had on that day,
it will also be presumed to have been made before such
84 MICH.-44.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.
adjournment, and that it was authorized by the Senate, and
that the true journal entry of the proceeding is as corrected
by the "errata." Id. 409.
9. Where a Senate bill, after having passed that body and been
given immediate effect, is amended in the House, and there
given immediate effect, a concurrence by the Senate in such
amendments must be considered as a concurrence in the
order that they take immediate effect, and a separate vote by
the Senate that the bill as amended take immediate effect is
unnecessary, Id.
10. An unconstitutional law is no law, and in no case can it
be made a justification in law for any action or non-action.
Adsit v. Osmun, 420.
11. While there may be cases where a person will not be
punished with costs for not taking action in opposition to a
law appearing upon the statute-books before the same is
declared unconstitutional, when such costs are in the discre-
tion of the court, yet no rights can be founded upon such a
law; nor can any person or persons be deprived of any rights
or privileges because such a law has been apparently legally
enacted, and appears in the body of our laws. Id.
12. Amendments of a city charter containing no provision
giving damages to parties injured by the regrading of streets,
which provide for such damages and for their ascertainment
and assessment, are within the general purposes of the
incorporation act. Sligh v. City of Grand Rapids, 497.
13. Act No. 292, Local Acts of 1885, and Act No. 436, Local
Acts of 1887, amendatory of the charter of Grand Rapids, in
so far as they provide for assessments for the payment
of damages sustained by the regrading of streets, are wholly
inoperative, in that they fail to provide for notice to the
parties who are to be assessed to satisfy the judgments
recovered by land-owners entitled to such damages in pro-
ceedings provided for in said acts. Id.
A complainant is guilty of contempt in filing a bill in a circuit
court other than that having jurisdiction of proceedings
under an assignment for the benefit of creditors, to enjoin a
sale of the assigned property on the ground of the invalidity
|