ments or decline to do so, or when they have told the referees that
the case was submitted. Ibid.

REGISTRATION:

(See EJECTMENT 2.)

RELATOR:

(See PRACTICE 32, 33.),

SALE FOR TAXES:
(See TAXES.)

SCALE:

1. A note given in October, 1863, to a distributee, upon settlement of
an estate, for an amount due in good money, is not subject to the
scale of depreciation. McCombs v. Griffith, 83.

comes

2. The rule that an endorser, on default of the maker of a note, be-
liable for the amount of the note, is not of uni-
versal application to notes endorsed during the late war; but
the contract of endorsement in such cases is effected by the legisla-
tion relating to the scale of depreciation, &c. Saunders v. Jarman,
86.

3. Where a note for $1,200, given in September, 1863, for property
worth $3,00, was endorsed shortly thereafter by the payee, in con-
sideration of property of the value of $1,200, and since the war the
endorsee discharged the maker, in writing, upon payment of $310;
Held, that the effect of the release was not to discharge the endorser,
but he is still liable for the difference, upou an implied contract in
the endorsement that, if the maker failed to do so, he would pay the
endorser the value of what he received for the note. Ibid.

4. Where a note was given in 1864 for money borrowed, one half of
which was to be paid "two years after the termination of this war,
without interest, in the then currency," it was held, that the legisla·
tive scale did not apply, and that half the sum borrowed was pay-
able in Unites States currency at the time stipulated. Williams v.
Monroe, 133.

5. In an action on a note given in 1862, for the purchase of property,
the statue makes the value of the property the guide for the verdict
of the jury, and it is competent to show what estimate was put upon
the property by the parties themselves, at the time of the sale. Og-
born v. Teague, 355.

6. Where a note was given in 1762, for the loan of Confederate money,
and afterwards, in 1864, the obligor tendcred the amount due in
Confederate currency, a portion of which was received, and a new
note given for the remainder; it was held, that the old debt must be
regarded as paid, and the transaction a new loan and the scale ap-
plied as of that date.

(See CORPORATION 4, VERDICT 1.)

SCHOOL COMMITTEE:

1. According to the Constitution and the Legislation in reference to
Common Schools, the school committees of townships are the suc-
cessors of the school committees of the districts under the former
system, and are entitled to all the property, and subject to all the
liabilities of their predecessors. School Commissioners, &c., v. Kesler

443.

SERVICE OE PROCESS:

In an action against a foreign corporation, where the plaintiff resides
in this State, or when the corporation has property in the State, or
when the cause of action arose therein, service of a copy of the sum-
mons upon the general or managing agent is sufficient; but where
neither one of the above conditions exists, service must be made upon
some one of the principal officers. Cunningham v. Southern Express
Co., 425.

SHERIFF:

1. Where a purchaser of land at ex cution sale obtained a rule upon
the Sheriff, who sold the land to require him to execute a convey.

ance, and the Sheriff gave as a reason for his refusal to make the
deed, that the defendant in the execution claimed the land as a
homestead, but it appeared that it had not been laid off, and was
not occupied or claimed as a homestead at the time of sale; Held
that the rule should be made absolute. Scott v. Walton, 109.

2. It is well settled, that if a Court issuing process has a general juris-
diction to issue such process, and the want of jurisdiction does not
appear upon the face of the paper, a Sheriff and his assistants may
justify under it. State v. Furguson, 219.

(See TAXES.)

SLANDER:

1. In an action for slander, if the defendant does not plead the Statute

of Limitations, the plaineiff may recover, though the proof shows that the words were spoken more than six months before the commencement of the action. Pegram v. Stoltz, 144.

2. When the slanderous words are alleged to have been spoken on a certain day, and at a certain place, the plaintiff may prove such words spoken on a different day, and a different place. Ibid.

4. Under the C. C. P., if the complaint alleges a positive charge of crime, as slander, and the evidence shows a conditional charge, still the plaintiff can recover, if the conditional words conveyed the same idea to the minds of the jury. Ibid.

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS:

(See EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS 3.)

STATUTES:

(See EVIDENCE 5, PROCEEDINGS SUP. TO EX.)

SUPREME COURT:

(See ISSUES, &C., 2, JURISDICTION 8.)

TAXES:

1. In selling lands for taxes, the Sheriff acts under a statutory power which must be strictly pursued, and he must not only do the acts which are required to bring his sale within the power, but he must do them within the time prescribed. 846.

Doe ex dem, Taylor v. Allen,

2. The Sheriff's power to sell land for taxes being given on the condition that it be exercised within a certain time, the Legislature cannot, by a private act, give him power to sell after the expiration of the time allowed by law. Ibid.

3. If a Sheriff fails to return lands sold for taxes according to the requirements of the statute, Rev. Code, chap. 19, sec. 91, the sale is imperfect, and cannot be perfected by his afterwards doing the act. Ibid.

4. A Sheriff who sells lands for taxes, and goes out of office before he makes a deed, cannot afterwards make such a deed. Ibid.

TENANTS:

(See EJECTMENT 2.)

TRUSTEE:

1. The widow cannot, as purchaser of land from the Assignee of her
husband, a bankrupt, set up title against the purchaser under a
deed in trust executed by her husband several years prior to his
bankruptcy. Williams v. Munroe, 164.

2. The negligence and unfaithfulness of the trustee in a deed in trust,
in which both personal and real property were conveyed, in not
selling the personal first, as required in the said deed, cannot be
made a question between the purchaser of the land under the deed
in trust, and those who succeed to the rights of the bargainor in
such deed. Their remedy, if they have any must be pursued against
the trustee. Ibid.

8. The widow of a bargainor, in a deed in trust, executed in 1859, who
was married before the execution of such deed in trust, cannot claim
dower against the purchaser under such deed. Ibid.

4. Where a testatrix bequeathed a share of her estate to her Executor,
"In trust that he shall put the amount of said share at interest on
good security, and pay the annual interest to my son for the use of
his family, &c.," and the Executor assumed the trust and invested the
funds as directed by the will, collecting and paying the annual inter-
est until 1862, when, without any necessity for it, and with a view
simply to surrender the trust, which was not done, he collected the
amount due and invested it in Confederate bonds which were lost;
Held, that the Executor was chargeable with the trust fund, and the
annual interest arising thereon. Jurney v. Cowan, 393.

5. Where one acquires the legal title to land, by means of an under-
taking with the party entitled to the equitable estate, that he will
hold the estate subject to the equity; a refusal to carry out the un-
dertaking is a breach of confidence, and ou that ground the party is
converted into a trustree. Blount v. Carroway, 396.

6. Therefore, where a power of sale was given by a mortgagor to the
mortgagee, in consideration of which the mortgagee agreed to con-
vey a portion of the land embraced in the deed, to a trustee, for the
benefit of the mortgagor's wife; it was held, that this contract did
not come within the provisions of a statute of trauds, and that the
mortgagee should be held a trustee, and bound to convey, accord-
ing to the agreement. In such cases an agreement proved only by
parol will not surffice, there must be facts de hors. Ibid.

7. Where a party buys as agent of the mortgagee, as in ihis case, and
with notice of the agreement, he will stand in the place of the mort-
gagee, and is effected by the same equities. Ibid.

(See PURCHASER.)

UNDERTAKINGS:
DERTAKING

1. An undertaking on appeal, given under secs. 303 and 414 of C. C P., though not so expressed, is, by implication, taken to be made with the appellee. Clerk's office v. Huffsteller 449.

2. Such undertaking secures the costs of the appelee, but not those of the appellant. Therefore, when there was judgment in the Supreme Court in favor of the appellant, his suretics are not liable on their undertaking for his costs, when such costs cannot be made out of the appellee, or their principal. Ibid.

3. Prosecution bonds, and undertakings on appeal, being sent up as part of the record, summary judgment may be taken upon them, as before the adoption of C. C. P. Ibid.

UNITED STATES COURTS :

1. Where, in an action pending in a Court of this State there were several plaintiffs, one of whom was a citizen of North Carolina and the others were non-residents of the State, the defendant being also a non-resident; Held, not to be a proper case for removal to the Circuit Court of the United States, upon petition, under the act of Congress of March 2d, 1867, there being no controversy between a citizen of this State and a citizen of another State. Bryant & Reade v Scott, 391.

VARIANCE:

1. The distinction between forms of action having been abolished by the Constitution, it would defeat the purpose of that provision if a party were allowed to avail himself of an objection, founded upon such distinction. Oates, Williams & Co. v. Kindall, 241.

2. Therefore, when a plaintiff, in his complaint, alleged and set out a case in trover, and the proof showed that it should have been in the nature of assumpsit for money had and received, it was held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, notwithstanding the variance.

Ind.

VENDOR:

(See PURCHASER.)

VERDICT:

1. The issues submitted to a jury in an action upon a note given May, 1864, being as to the execution of the note and the currency in which it was solvable; Held, that a verdict, finding "all issues in favor of the plaintiff for the value of Confederate money," is sufficient to sup