NOTES OF RECENT CASES in the second degree, and were thereupon dis charged. After learning these facts accused and his attorney went into the court room and the judge recalled the members of the jury who were still in or near the court house. The verdict was read to them and they were asked if that was their verdict, and some or all of them replied it was. Accused then applied for his discharge on the ground that the verdict was invalid and that he could not be retried because of having once been put in jeopardy. The court refers to several cases having more or less bearing upon the ques tions involved and comes to the conclusion that accused cannot be retried and will have to be dis charged from further prosecution. DEEDS. (Defective Acknowledgment.) Tex. Ct. of Civ. App. —• The right to introduce parole evidence to show that an acknowledgment of a conveyance of separate property of a married woman was properly taken, notwithstanding de fects in the certificate, was passed upon by the court of civil appeals of Texas in Veeder v. Gilmer, 105 S. V. Rep. 331. The action was one of tres pass to try title. Plaintiff was the grantor in the conveyance alleged to have been invalid and defendant the grantee. Defendant by crossproceeding asked correction of the defective acknowledgment. Plaintiff's plea of limitations to this proceeding was sustained, but the court held that the conveyance was not absolutely void and that parole evidence might be introduced to show that the acknowledgment was properly taken merely for the purpose of making the deed color of title under which adverse possession might be claimed but not for the purpose of establishing it as directly conveying title. DIVORCE. (Legitimation of Issue of Subsequent Marriage.) N. Y. Ct. of App. — The New York Court of Appeals recently decided a knotty ques tion as to legitimacy in the case of Olmsted v. Olmsted, 83 N. E. Rep. 569. All parties to the action claimed as remainder men through their father who was life tenant under a devise to him for life with remainder to his " lawful issue." The father having abandoned his first wife and family of four children in New York, went to New Jersey where he again married without having obtained a divorce. Two children were born as issue of this unlawful wedlock. Subsequently he removed with his second wife and their children to Michigan where he instituted divorce proceedings against his first wife by publication. She received no notice of the proceedings and a decree for divorce was awarded to her husband who fhereupon went through another marriage ceremony with his second wife. The first wife thereafter obtained a judicial separation in New York by proceedings in which her husband appeared by an
269
attorney. By the law of Michigan the inter marriage of parents legitimizes their offspring. The New York Court held that the Michigan Court never obtained jurisdiction of the person of the first wife, that its decree of divorce was therefore not a judgment which it was bound to respect, and that the subsequent marriage was invalid and did not operate as a legitimation of the issue of the second wife. Adams v. Adams, 154 Mass. 290, 28 N. E. 260, 13 L. R. A. 275, is cited in the opinion as involving very similar questions. EQUITY. (Adequacy of Remedy at Law.) Mass. — The defense of adequacy of remedy at law was held by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts In Russo v. Chapin, 83 N. E. Rep. 308, available to defendant in' a suit to cancel a bond given under a statute which plaintiff alleged to be void. The court held that its invalidity might be pleaded and determined in any action for breach of the bond and a decision against its constitutionality pleaded in bar in any other action for different breaches so as to not make it a case for equitable cognizance on the ground of multiplicity of suits. HIGHWAYS. (Injuries to Automobile from Defects.) Mass. — Is an automobile a carriage within the meaning of a statute providing that highways shall be kept in repair at the expense of a city or town so as to be reasonably safe and con venient for travelers with carriages? The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in the case of Doherty v. Town of Ayer, 83 N. E. Rep. 677. holds that it is not. The highway, where the accident occurred, was being reconstructed by a railroad company preparatory to laying a track partly within the highway and was cut down to the depth of two or three feet and covered with sand. Plain tiff's automobile stuck in the sand as he was attempting to pass over it. Help had to be secured in pulling it out and the machine was in jured while this was being done. Action was then instituted for recovery of damages. The court held that it would be unreasonable to construe a statute which was first enacted more than 100 years ago to include within the term " carriages" such heavy machines as present-day automobiles, and referred to the enormous expense it would be for towns and cities in sparsely settled regions to keep their highways in such repair a.t all times that automobiles could pass safely over them. INSURANCE. (Legal Execution of Insured.) Ill. — The case of Collins v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 83 N. E. Rep. 542, decided by the Supreme Court of Illinois, is said to bring up a question of first impression in that state in the law of in surance. The action was brought for recovery of an insurance policy issued on the life of one Kil
