PREMIUMS.

For insurance, see "Insurance," §§ 5, 8.

PRESCRIPTION.

Acquisition of rights, see "Adverse Possession," § 1.

Establishment of highways, see "Highways," § 1.

PRESENTMENT.

Of bill or note, see "Bills and Notes." § 5. Of claims against estate of decedent, see "Executors and Administrators," § 4.

PRESUMPTIONS.

In civil actions, see "Evidence," § 2.
On appeal or error, see "Appeal and Error," § 22.

PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY.

See "Criminal Law," § 1.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.

See, also, "Attorney and Client"; "Brokers." Admissions by agent, see "Evidence," § 7. Corporate agents, see "Corporations," § 4. Municipal agents, see "Municipal Corporations," § 11.

Payment of note to unauthorized agent, see "Bills and Notes," § 6.

§ 1. The relation.

An agreement held not to create an exclusive selling agency.-William Deering & Co. v. Beatty (Iowa) 325.

Newspaper publication wherein one advertises himself as agent of another held inadmissible to prove agency, unless principal authorized publication. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Barlow (Iowa) 1031.

The testimony of one that he has authority to contract held inadmissible to prove agency.-Gore v. Canada Life Assur. Co. (Mich.) 650.

Where negotiable note was payable at a particular office, it does not constitute party in charge of office agent of holder to receive money, unless the note is in his possession.Hollinshead v. John Stuart & Co. (N. D.) 89. § 2. Mutual rights, duties, and liabili

ties.

An agent who acts for two principals must exercise the utmost good faith.-Morey v. Laird (Iowa) 835.

An agent furnishing to his principal machinery owned by him held entitled, where the machinery was retained by principal, to the reasonable value of the machinery.-Antiseptic Fiber Package Co. v. Klein (Mich.) 931.

Evidence held to warrant a finding that the secretary and treasurer of a corporation was authorized to manage the interests of another stockholder.-Church v. Church Cementico Co. (Minn.) 548.

Defendant being liable to plaintiff for taking orders for machinery filled by defendant, it is immaterial that some of the customers execute new written orders.-Merriman v. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. (Wis.) 880.

§ 3. Rights and liabilities as to third persons.

Instructions to a managing agent held not to authorize him to execute a chattel mortgage. Edgerly v. Cover (Iowa) 328.

An agent's telegram to his principal, and reply thereto, held to constitute authority in the agent to effect a settlement.-Hasbrouck v. Western Union Tel. Co. (Iowa) 1034.

An agreement by one as agent is not direct evidence of authority in an action against the supposed principal, but is admissible to show plaintiff's understanding on the subject.-Gore v. Canada Life Assur. Co. (Mich.) 650.

Evidence held sufficient to go to jury on question of authority of agent to retain attorney for principal.-Bissell v. Moore (Mich.) 931.

Where agent contracts in excess of his authority, and principal fails to disavow the same, he ratifies the contract.-Anderson v. Johnson (Minn.) 26.

by principal may be evidence of authority to do Single act of assumed agent and recognition similar acts.-Anderson v. Johnson (Minn.) 26. Where the cashier shipped for plaintiff, in the name of the bank, a car load of wheat, to be sold on plaintiff's account, and the bank received the proceeds, it was liable for them to plaintiff. Landin (Minn.) 35.

V. Moorhead Nat. Bank

It is no defense, in an action for money had and received, that defendant has already paid the money to another person through mistake. -Landin v. Moorhead Nat. Bank (Minn.) 35.

A debtor cannot infer that a person formerly having possession of the note and mortgage is entitled to receive payment therefor when they have been withdrawn from his hands by the payee.-Dwight v. Lenz (Minn.) 546.

Evidence held insufficient to show that a principal had ratified unauthorized act of his agent in accepting payment.-Smith v. Fletcher (Minn.) 800.

Effect of silence or inaction after knowledge of unauthorized act of agent, as showing ratification, determined.-Smith v. Fletcher (Minn.) 800.

Ratification by silence or inaction, after knowledge of unauthorized act of his agent, held based on doctrine of equitable estoppel.-Smith v. Fletcher (Minn.) 800.

Evidence held to show that an agent had no authority from his principal to accept payment of a mortgage.-Smith v. Fletcher (Minn.) 800.

Authority to hire servants for defendant held to authorize a hiring for such length of time as, under the circumstances, would be reasonable.Drohan v. Merrill & Ring Lumber Co. (Minn.) 957.

tiff's loan agent had authority to receive payEvidence held insufficient to show that plainment of note and mortgage in her possession.Budd v. Broen (Minn.) 979.

Evidence held insufficient to sustain finding that plaintiff's agents had authority to receive payment of note and mortgage not in their possession. Thomas v. Swanke (Minn.) 981.

Agent contracting without authority for another held not personally liable, unless he is within the terms of the contract.-Brong Spence (Neb.) 54.

V.

A principal accepting profits of unauthorized contract of agent held liable to person with whom contract is made.-Brong v. Spence (Neb.) 54.

Unauthorized act of agent must be either adopted or rejected by his principal as a whole. United States School-Furniture Co. v. School Dist. No. 87, Lancaster County (Neb.) 62.

Principal will be held to have ratified acts of agent by knowingly accepting benefit thereof.— United States School-Furniture Co. v. School Dist. No. 87, Lancaster County (Neb.) 62.

Whether an act is within the scope of an agent's apparent authority is a question of fact. Holt v. Schneider (Neb.) 1086.

Authority of agent to collect principal's debt held not to include authority to accept note of

PUBLIC DEBT.

See "Counties," § 2.

PUBLIC LANDS.

81. Disposal of lands of United States. The right to enter a soldier's additional homestead given by Rev. St. U. S. § 2306, is personal property.-Pardoe v. Merritt (Minn.) 552.

Where the right to enter a soldier's additional homestead given by Rev. St. U. S. § 2306, is assigned, and a power of attorney is inserted therein to make the entry, the name of the attorney may be left blank.-Pardoe v. Merritt (Minn.) 552.

§ 2. Disposal of lands of the states.

There is no constitutional provision making compensation condition precedent to the right of state to permit railroad company to operate its track across public lands.-Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Englehart (Neb.) 1092.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

See "Schools and School Districts." § 1.

PUBLIC USE.

claim which contains matter that could be properly alleged in the answer.-Sloan v. Rose (Wis.) 895.

RAILROADS.

See, also, "Street Railroads." Carriage of goods and passengers, riers."

§ 1. Operation.

see "Car

Where deceased's team became unmanageable on approaching a railroad crossing, the question of defendant's negligence in sounding the whistle, increasing the team's fright, was for the jury.-Pratt v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 1064.

A charge that if, by reason of deceased's team becoming unmanageable, failure of a railroad company to give signals at a crossing would not have prevented the injury, such failure was not the proximate cause, held sufficient.-Pratt v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 1064.

A charge that, if persons using ordinary care were warned of the approach of a train, defendant was not obliged to check its speed on approaching a crossing, held correct.-Pratt v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 1064.

Under Code, § 2072, requiring a locomotive whistle to be sounded at crossings, except in

PUNISHMENT.

Particular offenses.

Violation of injunction, see "Injunction," § 3.

QUESTIONS FOR JURY.

In civil actions, see "Trial," § 4.

QUIETING TITLE.

1. Right of action. Evidence held to show that complainant's possession necessary to maintain a bill to quiet title was not wrongfully obtained.-Lillie v. Snow (Mich.) 241.

An action will lie to quiet title to personal property.-Magnuson v. Clithero (Wis.) 882.

2. Proceedings and relief. Unexplained silence for 23 years held to prevent plaintiff's recovery of land under a deed to a fictitious grantee, on the evidence of such grantee alone, as against defendants in possession, who had paid taxes and made valuable improvements.-Holman V. Winterboer (Iowa)

1060.

An answer in an action based on ownership in land, denying plaintiff's ownership, and alleging title in defendant, is sufficient without reciting all the evidence by which defendant's claim is to be established.-Male v. Brown (S. D.) 585.

All parties to a judgment amending a divorce judgment, and quieting title to property passed thereby, held bound, whether the divorce judgment was valid or not, and whether or not the court had jurisdiction to amend.-Magnuson v. Clithero (Wis.) 882.

A complaint held broad enough to cover a judgment of quia timet as to notes and a mortgage.-Magnuson v. Clithero (Wis.) 882.

A deed by a county to lands owned by it cannot be collaterally assailed, in an action in which the county is not a party, as having been executed under a sale irregularly made.-Sloan v. Rose (Wis.) 895.

Defendant is not entitled to judgment on account of plaintiff's failure to reply to a counter

charge that it was defendant's duty to sound the whistle is not error, where the injury occurred at a crossing within a town having no such ordinance.-Pratt v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 1064.

Where evidence showed that a track was partially obstructed, held not error for the court to assume in its charge that there were obstructions to sight and hearing of an approaching train.-Pratt v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 1064.

It was not error to charge on a question of defendant's negligence in failing to provide a flagman at a crossing, where the evidence showbefore going on the crossing.-Pratt v. Chicaed that decedent's team became unmanageable go, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 1064.

Evidence held to support a finding that if deceased had looked he could not have seen an approaching train, because of buildings obstructing the view.-Pratt v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 1064.

Special findings requested held to call for ultimate facts bearing on the question of contributory negligence, and hence proper.-Pratt v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 1064.

Evidence held not to warrant a submission of whether a railroad company ran its train at such a high speed as to constitute "gross negligence" supervening intestate's negligence.Stewart v. Michigan Cent. R. Co. (Mich.) 643.

Evidence held to show plaintiff's intestate guilty of contributory negligence in attempting to drive across a railroad track.-Stewart v. Michigan Cent. R. Co. (Mich.) 643.

the jury should find that an engine bell and whistle were sounded as the engine approached a crossing. Stewart v. Michigan Cent. R. Co. (Mich.) 643.

Evidence held not to warrant a direction that

Licensee at depot platform injured by bundle thrown from rapidly moving train held not entitled to recover where evidence does not show practice dangerous. McGrath v. Eastern Ry. Co. of Minnesota (Minn.) 136.

19, to compel a railroad company to comply with In a proceeding under Laws 1897, c. 110, § the order of the board of railroad commissioners, a motion for judgment on the pleadings for plaintiff held properly denied.-State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (S. D.) 104.

REMAND.

After appeal from county court to district court, held error to refuse to permit filing of ture of plaintiff's interest.-Weich v. Milliken (Neb.) 363.

Plaintiff's measure of damages is the marv. Vesey (Neb.) 1100.

REMOVAL.

Of pauper, see "Paupers," § 1.

REMOVAL OF CAUSES.

Change of venue or place of trial, see "Venue," $3.

REMOVAL OF CLOUD.

See "Quieting Title."

RENEWAL.

§ 6. Trial, judgment, and enforcement of judgment.

Where execution is levied on property in a mill owned by plaintiff to satisfy a judgment against A., held not error to submit the question of ownership, where the evidence shows that plaintiff had declared he had nothing to do with the mill.-Nodle v. Hawthorne (Iowa) 1062.

A verdict merely that defendant did not unlawfully detain, under the general issue, held not to entitle defendant to a return of the property.-Harris v. O'Gorman (Mich.) 12.

REPAIRS.

Of premises demised, see "Landlord and Tenant," § 5.

REPEAL.

Of statute, see "Statutes," § 3.

REPLEVIN.

1. Right of action and defenses. Replevin does not lie to recover property taken under a tax warrant (How. Ann. St. 8318), unless the tax was not levied in pursuance of any law of this state.-Roberts v. Denio (Mich.) 7.

A demand held necessary to vest in plaintiff the right to possession.-People's Furniture & Carpet Co. v. Crosby (Neb.) 658.

Linn (Neb.) 51.

Plaintiff in replevin cannot, after obtaining the property, dismiss the case without defendant's consent.-Houck v. Linn (Neb.) 51.

Where plaintiff was in possession at time of trial, a judgment for the return or value must be reversed, where there was no finding as to value.-Brownell & Co. v. Fuller (Neb.) 775.

§ 7. Liabilities on bonds and undertakings.

Where property was replevied from a sheriff who held under an attachment, the attachment creditor, and not the sheriff, was the proper plaintiff in a suit against the replevying officer Shull v. Barton (Neb.) 132. for negligently approving the replevin bond.

REPLICATION.

See "Pleading," § 3.

$2. Parties.

Action held brought in the names of the copartners, but not in the name of the firm.Stever v. Brown (Mich.) 704.

Joint owners of chattel property can join in replevin.-Honaker v. Vesey (Neb.) 1100.

3. Proceedings for taking and redelivery of property.

Affidavit held to sufficiently show that the property described was not taken for any tax. -Stever v. Brown (Mich.) 704.

Where plaintiff fails to give bond, and the property is returned to defendant, the action

REPLY.

REQUESTS.

For instructions in criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," § 6.

to jury in civil actions, see "Trial," § 5.

RESCISSION.

Cancellation of written instrument, see “Cancellation of Instruments."

Of contract, see "Contracts," § 3.
Of insurance policy, see "Insurance," § 6.

RESERVATIONS.

§ 4. Pleading and evidence.

Where execution was levied on property in a

RESTRICTIONS.

RESULTING TRUSTS.

RETIRING PARTNERS.

See "Partnership," § 4.