Albert Sidney Bolles, Ph.D., LL.D. (continued 3)

In such a deed the grantor or seller agrees or covenants to do usually four or more specific things: first, he asserts that he has a right to convey the land at the time of the sale. Of course, if he has not, the agreement or covenant is at once broken and the buyer can proceed against him to make the title good, or to recover damages if he cannot retain the premises. The second covenant or agreement is to the effect that the seller has both the quantity and quality of land mentioned in the deed. The third covenant is that there are no encumbrances on the land, that is, no mortgages, no rights of others to pass over it, or to take earth, water or other things from the land. The fourth covenant is for the quiet enjoyment of the land, which is the most general form of warranty. There may be other covenants, often there are, while the four mentioned may be, and often are, modified.

Does such a warranty bind other persons than the warrantor, in other words are his heirs and persons to whom he may devise his lands also indefinitely bound by his warranty? The statutes in some states fix his liability. Where none exist the law limits the liability of parties to the amount of assets or property they have received from the warrantor; if they have received nothing they are not liable for anything.

A covenant to protect the buyer from encumbrances, claims, etc., does not always relieve him from the expense of a lawsuit. Suppose A claims a right of way over B's land and insists on using it. B brings his action of trespass against him and wins. He cannot sue his grantor or seller to recover the expense of the suit, for the latter would reply, "You have won your case which is proof that the title is good as warranted, and therefore you have no claim against me." If, on the other hand, A had won his case B would then have a good cause of action against his covenantor.

Another kind of deed used in selling land is called an indenture. This is signed by all the parties, and copies are usually made and delivered to all of them. This deed also contains warrants or covenants like the one first described.

Another kind of deed is called a release or quit-claim. By this the grantor or party giving it conveys whatever interest he may have in the land. It is the deed always given by a mortgagee on the payment or discharge of his mortgage. It contains no warrants to do anything and therefore differs from a deed of warranty. Sometimes a person conveys a piece of land knowing that the title is defective which the purchaser, notwithstanding the defect, is willing to buy. The seller may safely give a quit-claim deed for he thereby sells only whatever interest he may have.

All the deeds above mentioned except an indenture, are signed only by the selling or granting party. They become effective by delivery. They are often called poll deeds.

Every grantor must append to his name a seal. Once a seal was of the utmost importance in the days of ignorance when persons knew not how to write and each person had a seal of his own. As distinctive seals have long since disappeared, seals have less significance than formerly, nevertheless many legal rules are founded on the distinction between sealed and unsealed instruments. Thus two written contracts may be exact duplicates except that one of them may have no seal. The law in most states regards the unsealed one as a mere oral or unwritten contract, to which are applied the same rules of evidence. The use of L.S., enclosed in brackets, thus [L.S.] is just as effective as a seal of wax or a wafer. In many states a corporation need not use its corporate seal, any other may be substituted. The federal rule especially requires the use of the corporate seal and that it be affixed by someone who was properly authorized to do this.

By statute the names of two witnesses are required, and when omitted the deed is not only defective, but in some states at least is void. A witness need not write his name in the grantor's presence, if asked to sign in the proper place as a witness this will suffice.

A lease of land is also a deed differing from those mentioned in conveying the use of land for a fixed period and on varying terms.

A deed should be completed before delivering it, the same rule applies to most legal writings. Unimportant alterations may be made, and if any are made, the question may prove difficult, are they important or not. Of course if both parties agree to them, the validity of the deed is not impaired. Whenever they do appear, in some states the law presumes they were made before delivering the deed, but this is not the rule everywhere.

Who can make or execute a deed? A minor cannot make a legal deed, and if he attempts to do so he can avoid or set it aside after he becomes of age whenever he acts with reasonable promptitude. If he does not thus act, his delay will be regarded as a ratifying of his previous action. What action will have this effect is a fact to be proved whenever the controversy arises.

Usually a deed need not be read to the grantee, nor can he avoid it because he did not know the contents, except when fraud has been practised on him. To a blind or ignorant man a different rule applies. The deed should be read to him, and if this is not done, or if it is wrongly read to him, he can have it set aside in a proper legal proceeding.

Delivery is essential; to do this two things are required. The grantor must give up the deed and the grantee must actually accept it, consequently the delivery of a deed after the grantor's death would not be valid. There must be an actual delivery by him, and though a deed may be completed in every other respect, it is not an effective deed. A deed therefore stolen from one's drawer and delivered to the grantee would not be valid, however innocent the grantee might be in receiving it. Many difficulties have arisen in applying this rule. When the question comes before a court, it seeks after the intention of the parties, and is guided by it when ascertained. If therefore a deed were lying on a table and the grantor should say to the grantee, take it, and he did so, the delivery would be complete; but if he should get it in a surreptitious way there would be no legal delivery. Suppose a deed were mailed to the grantee, or handed to another person to deliver to the grantee, this would be a good delivery.

As soon as the deed has been delivered, it should be taken to the recorder's office to be recorded. Every state has offices in the towns or counties for keeping a perfect copy of all deeds relating to the transfer of the lands within the limits of the town or county. The object of this is to protect purchasers, for, if this were not done, the owner of land might sell it to a purchaser a second time who knew nothing of the previous sale, and then someone would be the loser. To guard against such frauds the system of registration was established at an early day in American history. A purchaser therefore should take his deed at once to the proper recording office for record, and this is regarded as notice to the world from the time of delivering the deed to the recorder, who makes a note thereon of the day and hour it was left with him. Suppose that some creditor of the grantor, not knowing of the sale, should attach the land as the property of the grantor to secure a debt due to him, could he hold it as against the purchaser? Ordinarily the purchaser could still retain the land, and the same rule would apply between him and a second purchaser, though buying in good faith supposing the grantor was the real owner. In some states a statute protects the purchaser by giving him a fixed period of two or three months or more to record his deed. The safe rule is to leave the deed with the recorder as soon as possible after receiving it.

It is a general practice to do another thing with deeds, to make or take an acknowledgment of them, and in some states this must be done before they can be recorded. This consists on the part of the grantor going before a proper officer, often a notary public, justice of the peace, clerk of a court of record, commissioner of deeds, and making oath that he has duly executed the above deed. This oath appears in the form of a certificate at the bottom of the deed or appended thereto and is signed by the officer, who also attaches his official seal. When a deed has thus been acknowledged it can be used in a legal proceeding as evidence without requiring further proof of its execution. But if it had not been acknowledged, then a court would require some proof that the deed had been made and delivered before accepting it as proof of the fact.

When a married woman executes a deed the officer who took the acknowledgment of the deed must make an examination, apart from her husband, to ascertain whether or no her act was voluntary, and he must also record the fact. The acknowledgment should be made after the examination. A defective acknowledgment by a married woman is worthless, nor will any court compel her to make another one. Should she make another deed, however, with a proper acknowledgment this would be legal.

The officials who take acknowledgments possess different authority, some can take them only of land situated in their respective states; others have authority to take acknowledgments of deeds of land in every state. In all the states are commissioners of deeds, so called, who are authorized to act outside their own state. Some persons who have an important conveyancing business have qualified themselves to thus act as commissioners for many states, and perform a highly useful service.

If a mistake has been made in a deed can it be corrected? The general rule is it can be amended in all cases of fraud, accident, or mistake. How can this be done? If the grantor is unwilling to do right, the purchaser can by a proper application to a court, or court of equity, ask for the correction of the deed or such other relief as justice requires. Suppose the grantor has declared in his deed that the land contains a hundred acres and a survey finds only fifty. This would be a palpable fraud and a court would, if requested, order the reconveyance of the land and return of the money. Suppose the deed covered no land at all belonging to the grantor, this would be a still greater fraud. Suppose the deed said one hundred acres more or less, and a survey found only fifty acres. The purchaser bought supposing that there was no such deficit, but perhaps a small one, what would a court do? Doubtless it would hold that the grantor tried to deceive the other party and would grant relief.

The land sold must be bounded or described. As land is increasing everywhere in value more pains is taken in describing it, than formerly. Large tracts have been surveyed by the government and are indicated as sections, quarter sections, yet even these boundaries are sometimes imperfect, caused by incorrect surveys, whereby lands overlap, or otherwise have defective boundaries.

One of the well-known rules is, monuments control corners and distances. This is founded on much experience, for this shows that courses differ from variations in the compass, changes in the surface, etc. Though monuments may be moved intentionally or by natural causes, they can be more trusted in the long run of things.

The location of a monument is a question of fact. It is sometimes said that natural monuments possess higher value than artificial ones, this depends on the character of the artificial one. A large stone set in a secure place surely is a better boundary than a wayward stream whose course is changed by every freshet. In marking the public lands of the western territories by statute monuments must designate the corners of the tract. But when these are lost then corners and distances become the guide. Oral evidence may be admitted to establish the location of monuments, and even hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose.

In a city lot courses and distances play a larger part in fixing the boundaries, and are more carefully defined. Often the boundary is to the center of a dividing wall.

The boundary of land by a non-navigable stream is to the center; and if one owns on both sides of such a stream he is the owner also of the bed. But if land is bounded by the bank or shore of a stream, or by other words of clearly evident exclusion, the stream is excluded. The rule is different that applies to a tidal navigable stream. In some states the boundary is high-water mark; in other states low-water. In both cases the riparian owner, so-called, may erect a wharf extending from his land subject to public control. The boundary of a natural pond or lake, either in its natural state or raised artificially, is low-water mark. Nor is the law changed by the conversion of a fresh water pond into a salt pond by the hand of man. The boundary to an artificial pond is through the center.

The title to the bed of all lakes, ponds, and navigable rivers to the ordinary high-water mark is vested in the states. Thus the people who live around them may enjoy the waters the same as others enjoy tidal waters. Nor is the state title affected by any manipulation of the land above the surface of the water.

The same rules of law apply to land situated along public highways. If a deed should bound the land "by or along a highway," it would include the land to the center; only words of clearly intending exclusion have a different effect. If a deed should say "by the side" of a highway, it might be excluded and it might not, the courts do not agree. All agree that the intention of the parties should govern, but differ as to intention expressed in the words they have used. The law is full of such difficulties. If a highway is abandoned, the adjoining owners can extend their lines to the center, unless one of them can prove that he is entitled to more than one half.

In investigating the title to real estate it is the duty of an attorney employed for that purpose, says Justice Trenchard, "to make a painstaking examination of the records and to report all facts relating to the title. He is, therefore, liable for any injury that may result to his client from negligence in the performance of his duties—that is, from a failure to exercise ordinary care and skill in discovering in the records and reporting all the deeds, mortgages, judgments, etc., that affect the title in respect to which he is employed."

Divisional Tree.—When the base of a tree is wholly on the land of one owner the whole tree belongs to him. An adjoining owner, however, may cut off at the divisional line such branches as over-hang his land without notice and without reference to the length of time they have been growing. To do this he cannot go on the land of his neighbor, but must stay on his own land. A different rule applies to a tree that stands on a divisional line and both owners have an interest therein.

Dower.—Dower is the interest that a wife has in her husband's land after his death, and consists, unless modified by statute, of the use of one third during her life. While both live her interest is so secured to her by law that he cannot sell and convey any of his land unless she unites with him in signing a proper deed of conveyance. In most states this interest or dower is paramount to the claims of her husband's creditors. But if there is any lien on the land at the time of his death, like a mortgage, she cannot claim a preference or priority over the mortgagee.

She can claim her dower in any land belonging to her husband which her children, if she had any, could have inherited as the heirs of their father. When her dower is in mortgaged land, she cannot get possession until the mortgage has been paid. Again, where land, wherein she has a dower interest, must be sold, her right to the proceeds follows the sale. If her husband was not in possession of the land claimed by him before and after marriage, her dower will not become effective until gaining possession. If he were only the nominal and not the real possessor, her dower will not attach to the land, nor if he were in possession as trustee, the real ownership belonging to another.

A legal marriage is necessary to sustain a dower estate. Whenever a marriage can be set aside for some illegality, and is not, it will sustain her dower on his death. So, too, her dower may be lost or barred by a legal separation; if she should re-marry, or the divorce is set aside, her dower would revive. Her dower may also be lost should her husband legally part with his estate, or by any legal proceeding it should be taken away from him; thus, should another claim it and prove that he had the better title. In other words she loses her dower whenever her husband has no estate from which her dower can be carved out. It is true that an adverse claimant cannot give any title to her husband's land that would bar her right thereto. The reason for this rule is that, like a minor, her rights cannot be acquired against one who is unable by reason of age or other infirmity to protect himself.

The wife is entitled to have dower assigned to her immediately after her husband's death. Until this is done, she has the right of common law for the period of forty days, called quarantine, to reside in her husband's house, provided she does not marry during that time.

Dower may be assigned to her in two ways. One way is by direction of the court, which ascertains by proper evidence the extent, location and value of the husband's lands, and then directs the sheriff to carry out its order in assigning to her a specific portion for her use during life. The other way is by agreement. In some states money is assigned to her instead of land as dower.

Dower may be barred by agreement made before marriage. These arrangements, marriage settlements, are becoming more frequent with the increase of wealth and complexities respecting the holding of property. Sometimes a testator provides for his widow in lieu of dower. In such a case she may accept the gift, or reject it and claim her dower rights. Suppose a testator should own a large amount of land, and in his will should give her only a small amount of money in lieu of dower. If eager to get the most possible, she would reject the gift of money and claim her dower rights. On the other hand, suppose he had but very little or no real estate, then she doubtless would accept the money gift, unless she could claim a still larger sum by virtue of some statute made to fit such cases.

Dower does not exist in crops or trees severed from the land, but does exist in mines and quarries belonging to the husband which were opened and worked during his life. If lands have been exchanged by the husband, she can elect in which she shall take her dower, but not in both. There can be no dower in a mere personal privilege, or in a revocable license pertaining to land. The widow of a partner is ordinarily entitled to dower in so much of the partnership land as is left after the payment of the firm's debts and the adjustment of matters between the partners. But if an agreement among them that the land shall be considered as personal property for all purposes, then no dower therein can be claimed by the widow of any partner.

A wife can release her inchoate dower or future expectation of receiving it by joining in a conveyance with her husband for that purpose. In order to make the election binding, it must be made with full knowledge on the widow's part of her husband's estate, and the relative value of her dower interest. The election is personal, and cannot be exercised by her representatives after her death, nor by creditors; and if insane, this cannot be done by any committee or guardian acting under the authority of a court.

An absolute divorce, even though for the husband's fault, divests the wife of dower, unless her right is saved by statute. Quite frequently, the statute provides that there shall be no dower in case of divorce for the wife's fault. Occasionally it is provided by statute that divorce for the husband's fault shall not bar dower; and sometimes a statute requires dower to be assigned immediately upon divorce without awaiting the husband's death. It may be added that the principles of the common law relating to dower have been largely modified by statute in all the states.

Drunkenness.—The courts are reluctant to recognize intoxication as an excuse either for committing a crime or for repudiating a contract, but if from long continued intemperate habits a man has become actually insane or incompetent, his actual mental condition will be recognized whatever may have produced it.

Again, in making a contract the other party could hardly deal with a man badly intoxicated without knowing his condition, consequently the element of fraud appears, and the contract may be declared invalid either for lack of contracting capacity on the part of the drunken man, or for fraud on the part of the other in taking advantage of his condition. His fraud would be still greater if he had designedly caused the drunkenness of the other. Either objection, however, renders the contract voidable rather than void, and should an intoxicated party, after he became sober ratify his contract, or fail to repudiate it and restore the consideration, if any, within a reasonable time, he would become bound.

The courts are still more reluctant to admit intoxication as an excuse for criminal acts. The courts hold that one who voluntarily deprives himself of self-control must have intended the consequences, therefore it is everywhere held that one who voluntarily becomes intoxicated, although he did so with no purpose to commit a crime when intoxicated, cannot claim immunity from criminal responsibility, or even a mitigation of the penalty, though having no capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. And yet, like so many legal rules, there are some marked exceptions to this one. Thus, since burglary is the entering of a house with the intent to commit a felony therein, one who blunders into a strange house because he is too drunk to know where he is or what he is doing has not committed the crime of burglary. So one who carried off the property of another through drunken ignorance does not commit larceny, as there is no intent in such a case to convert the property to the taker's own use. Another application has been made in cases of assault with intent to kill a person.

Again, says Peck, "if one is visibly intoxicated, it is the duty of those who come in contact with him to take his condition into account, and their use of due care will be judged in view of that fact. Even if the drunken person and the other are both negligent, the sober party may be liable under the doctrine of the last clear chance, if he fails to exercise toward the drunken man the degree of care which is evidently required to avoid injuring him. Especially is a common carrier, in dealing with a passenger who is on its car in an intoxicated condition, bound to take his helpless condition into account in removing him from the car or otherwise handling him, and not put him in a place of manifest danger to one in his condition."

It has also been held that the intoxication of one who uttered a slander may be admissible in mitigation of the damages, as utterances of a drunken man could not seriously impair the reputation of any one.

Equitable Remedies.—Elsewhere we have told how courts of law differ from courts of equity. In some states no separate courts exist, and wherever legal proceedings are established by a code or system of statute law, the form of complaint addressed to a court is quite the same in an equity case as in any other. But in states where code practice has not been established, the mode of setting forth one's grievance or wrong is by a bill or petition, ending with a prayer for relief. We will now briefly state some of the things for which relief in equity may be sought.

One of the most common things is to compel persons who refuse to perform their contracts to execute them. Suppose one has agreed in writing properly signed to sell his farm to another, but is unwilling to give him a deed. It may be that he can get more for his farm, or he has made the discovery since selling it that it is worth much more, is underlaid with coal or oil, or that a railway is soon to be built near it that will enhance its value. If he went to a law court, all that it could do would be to compel the seller to give the purchaser such damages as he could prove he had sustained from the seller's failure to execute his agreement. But a court of equity can go further and compel the seller to give the purchaser a proper deed, the kind of deed mentioned in the agreement; or, if none was specified, the kind of deed usually given in such cases.

This remedy cannot be always sought whenever the seller fails to execute his contracts. The important limitation is, when the law has an adequate remedy, and the injured person has no need of resorting to a court of equity. All the ordinary agricultural and manufactured products fall within this class, cotton, cattle, lumber, fruits, stock in trade and the like. But if a chattel has a sentimental value to the purchaser, a court of equity will decree that it must be delivered to him, because in such a case the damages would obviously be inadequate. The same rule applies to all articles of a unique or rare value that cannot be duplicated; also to patented or copyrighted things that cannot be procured in the open market.

Suppose one has purchased the stock of a bank or railroad company, which the seller refuses to deliver, has the buyer a legal remedy for damages, or an equitable remedy to compel the seller to deliver the stock, or has he the choice of remedies? The courts have divided on this question. The better rule is, if the stock can be readily bought in the open market, the buyer has only a law remedy to recover damages from the seller's failure to execute his contract; if the stock cannot be thus purchased, a money damage is not an adequate remedy, the purchaser wants the stock and he can, through a court of equity, compel the seller to deliver it to him. As government bonds can always be bought in the open market, a court of equity will not decree the specific execution of a contract for the delivery of the actual bonds purchased.

If A has agreed to erect a building for B on his land and fails to do it, money damages are usually an adequate remedy, but if B cannot find any one else to do the work as well, or in as satisfactory manner, then a court of equity would compel A to fulfil his agreement. Likewise if a landlord has agreed to repair his tenant's premises and neglects, the legal remedy is usually more satisfactory than a specific execution of the agreement, because work done under compulsion is not likely to be as well done as that done voluntarily.

A contract to render personal services will not be enforced against a person who has agreed to perform them, for several reasons, one is that another person can be employed, another is that the thirteenth amendment to the federal constitution, forbidding involuntary servitude, cuts off the equitable remedy in such cases; of course the legal remedy for damages is still effective. A contract to give a mortgage to secure a loan of money may be enforced by the creditor, but a contract to lend money cannot be enforced by either party, because there is usually an open market for the lending and borrowing of money. Likewise a contract to form a partnership cannot be enforced, for, if it were, the unwilling partner could dissolve it and thus nullify the action of the court.

Where one sells out his business, whether commercial or professional, and agrees not to compete with the buyer, equity will compel the seller to observe his contract unless it was illegal or an unreasonable restraint on trade. This limitation is important. Thus A, a dentist in Philadelphia, agreed with B, another dentist, not to practice in the city for ten years a certain method of extracting teeth. A continued to practice as before and B applied to a court of equity to enjoin him. He failed for the reason that no one ought to have a monopoly, so the court said, in any means or method for relieving human suffering, like the process in dispute. If an employee agrees not to divulge the trade secrets of his employer, equity will enforce the agreement, for damages given in a law court would be wholly inadequate.

Another class of cases must be mentioned relating to injuries to land. By the common law the only relief a landowner had against one who injured it in any way was an action of waste to recover money damages. A court of equity has power to issue a command to the person who threatens or attempts to commit injury ordering and directing him to desist from his purpose. This has been often used by the owners of land against their tenants who attempted to do things that would materially injure the property. This remedy is now often used to secure the owner and occupier of land in its proper use against those who attempt to commit a nuisance. While the occupier could recover damages if he sought the aid of a law court, equity will order the wrongdoer to abate the nuisance. Such a remedy is much more effective than the legal one, because damages that may be recovered relate only to a past offense, while the equitable one prevents it from happening or from its continuance.

Promises not to do some particular act on a piece of land are often made in deeds conveying them; they are called covenants. Equity will usually enforce these covenants, and will compel the wrongdoer to undo what he has done provided that relief is sought promptly. Thus if a purchaser agrees not to build nearer the street than a stated line, he can be enjoined from disregarding it. A purchaser therefore who built two houses three feet beyond the agreed line was compelled to remove them.

The remedy in such a case is an injunction. It may be temporary or permanent. Quite often when one applies for an injunction, if the injury threatened is immediate, the court will immediately enjoin the party from proceeding and fix a time for a future hearing to decide whether the injunction shall be dissolved or made permanent. The time fixed for such a hearing is within the discretion of the court, and depends on the nature of the case. Usually the time is quite short, enough to enable the parties to collect the evidence relating to the controversy. The hearing is conducted very much like any other trial, witnesses appear, all the evidence is given, and is reviewed by contending counsel, after which the judge announces his decision. Some of the more noteworthy injunctions of recent days have been rendered against labor unions or their members who, having struck for higher wages, or other ends, have sought to picket the works of their employers and thus prevent them from employing other workers to take the places of the strikers. The unions contend that this is an improper use of the judicial power, whether it is or not no one will deny that it has been long exercised.

In the early days of administering the patent law injunctions were granted against infringers. Judges soon grew more cautious when they learned that patents were sometimes erroneously granted, and that, on acquiring a fuller knowledge of the controversy, there had been no infringement. The modern practice therefore is, unless the proof is very clear, to require a party who applies for an injunction to try his case first and establish his patent and then, if it has been infringed, an injunction will be issued.

Factor.—A factor receives and sells goods for a commission, is usually entrusted with their possession, and sells them in his own name. He has a special interest or property in them, and a lien thereon for advances in money that he may make to the owners. No formal mode of authorizing him to act is required, usually this is done by word only, and his authorized acts may be ratified by his principal. This authority is largely the outgrowth of usage. The authority of a factor to fix the terms of selling may be by agreement or by usage, like any other agent. Limitations fixed by the principal are ordinarily binding on the factor, and, so far as they are chargeable with notice of them, third persons also. Where goods are confided to a factor without instructions, authority to exercise a fair and reasonable discretion is implied. Unless restricted by his principal, or by contrary usage, he may sell goods on a reasonable term of credit. If he is restricted to cash sales only, or is not protected by usage in selling on credit, he cannot do so. Secret instructions would not affect the rights of a purchaser ignorant of them and relying on customary authority.

A factor is employed to sell goods, and not to barter or exchange them, and if he should do this his principal could recover them. He may insure the goods, but is not required to do so unless instructed or is required by usage, which plays a large part in this matter and must be observed except as qualified by instructions.

He cannot compound or compromise a claim for the purchase price, or discharge the debt on payment of a part only, or submit a disputed claim for arbitration, or rescind a sale, or discharge a purchaser from any part of his obligation, or extend the time of payment, or make, accept or indorse negotiable paper contrary to instructions or usage, or sell the goods thus entrusted to him for sale to himself. See Agency.

Fire Insurance.—Insurance against loss by fire is now effected in companies organized for that purpose. Two kinds exist, stock and mutual. In mutual companies the persons insured act together to insure each other. The members of some of the largest mutual companies are manufacturing corporations. The more general mode of conducting them is to require each member to pay a premium in advance for the amount insured which, unless unusual losses occur, will be enough to pay all the losses for the year. If it is not all needed, the balance is returned to the parties who paid the premiums, or is credited to them for the following year. If the losses exceed the premiums thus paid in advance, then an assessment is made on each member to cover the deficiency. Generally the premium paid is more than enough to cover the losses, and a balance is returned or credited to the insured as above mentioned. As mutual companies do not take such risks as stock companies, the cost of insurance is less and therefore is carried in preference to insurance in stock companies, whenever it can be obtained.

There is another way for paying for losses in mutual companies. Instead of paying cash premiums in advance, the insured gives a bond or note well secured that he will pay in cash whenever a call is made on him to cover the losses that have been incurred at the end of the year or other period. This method is in vogue in some sections, because still less money is required to keep property insured. Of course besides the money to pay losses another sum is required to pay the expense of management. It will be seen that the mutual plan is purely for protection against loss and no profit in the way of dividends is forthcoming, for the companies have no capital. It is true that some companies, instead of returning the unexpended premiums for losses retain them or a part of them and by so doing accumulate a surplus. Many companies, however, return all the contributions not expended for management or losses and have no surplus, or only a very small one.

Stock insurance companies proceed on a different principle. They are organized to make money, a capital is subscribed, the rates of insurance or premiums are fixed and after paying the expense of management and loss, the balance is paid to the stockholders in the way of dividends. The business is one of unusual hazard, and only a rich person, who can afford to lose his money, ought to invest in the stock of such companies. Their profits and losses vary greatly from year to year; and failures have been frequent. Nevertheless some companies have a fine record, enough to tempt them to continue notwithstanding their trying reverses.

As the contract of insurance is for an indemnity, the insured must have some interest in the property insured, otherwise the contract is a mere wager, which the law condemns. Moreover the interest must continue and exist at the time of the loss. Who, therefore, has an insurable interest? A bailee, a carrier of goods, a consignee who has authority to sell them, a factor, pledgee, warehouseman, an assignee for the benefit of creditors, an executor or administrator, an attachment creditor, but not a general creditor, a landlord, tenant, mortgagee of real or personal property, a lienor, for example, the holder of a mechanic's lien, a receiver, residuary legatee or devisee, a trustee, vendees and vendors of real and personal property, the owner of stock in a corporation, any agent who has the care and management of his principal's property, besides many others. But a fire insurance policy may be assigned as collateral security with the company's consent, and continue valid though the assignee has no interest in the property. This rule therefore is fundamental, and if the interest of the insured in the property has been extinguished after making his contract and prior to its loss by fire, he can get nothing from the company. Likewise the property must have been in existence at the time of making the contract, if it was not, the policy is void. Many stories are told of insuring ships after learning of their loss; such conduct is a palpable fraud.

An insurance policy is a contract, of which the policy is evidence. A standard policy has been prescribed in several states by statute: in other states the parties are still free to make such terms as they please. It is usual for companies to execute blank policies in due form to be filled out and delivered by their agents. Such policies are not valid until countersigned, unless the countersigning is waived.

When does the policy become valid or binding on the insured? Says a competent authority: "Where a policy has been duly executed in compliance with an application on the part of the insured, so that the minds of the parties have fully met as to the terms and conditions of the contract, a manual delivery of the policy to the insured is not essential to render it binding on the company. If the contract has become binding by the issuance of the policy and the placing it in the hands of an agent for delivery, then the fact that such delivery is not actually made to the insured until after the loss has occurred, will not defeat recovery by the insured."

The premium usually must be paid at the time of issuing the policy, unless a different agreement is made concerning it. Credit may be given, and an agent generally has authority to do this. A valid payment may also be made in other means than money; a check or note may be given for it.

An insurance policy may be assigned, though it usually contains a clause that the consent of the insurer is needful. When the policy contains this clause and the insurer without valid reason refuses to consent to an assignment, "the assignee acquires the same right as though consent had been given."

Consent to an assignment may be given by the president of the company, without formal vote by the directors. It may also be given by the secretary or by any other agent duly authorized.

When can a policy be canceled? Unless this right is reserved in the contract, or given by statute, the insurer cannot cancel the contract without the consent of the insured. It often is reserved, and if exercised, this must be done before a loss occurs, and a cancellation made afterwards, though without knowledge of it, is void. The motive for making it is not important. If, as a condition of cancellation, the unearned portion of the premium is to be returned, the failure to return it renders the cancellation worthless. Nor is this effective until notice has been given to the insured.

A court of equity will reform a contract of insurance on the ground of accident, fraud, and mistake. Oral evidence is admissible to prove the fraud or mistake; it must, however, be clear before a court will grant relief. If mistake is the ground for asking relief, the insured must not have been guilty in causing it, and must act promptly after his discovery. This rule does not prevent him from seeking relief when the agent of the insurer has been negligent. Furthermore it may be granted even after the happening of a loss.

Should there be a conflict between the written and printed portions of a policy, the written portion will be presumed to represent the intent of the parties. If, therefore, the printed portion excludes certain articles from the risk, and the written portion covers them, they are included. Conditions also written or printed on the margin or back of the policy are regarded as portions of it, and these too will control the printed portions. Besides, the written application is usually considered a part of the contract and the policy is construed or interpreted in connection with it. This is especially so where the proposals and conditions are attached to the policy. If the intent of the policy is not clear from the language used, the surrounding circumstances may be shown for the purpose of ascertaining the intent of the parties. The known usage of trade may also be taken into account in construing the language of a policy.

The language of the policy should be so construed as to cover the property within the intention of the parties, and support, if possible, the contract of indemnity. Mere clerical errors or mistakes in describing it may be corrected even after it has been destroyed. The location is an essential element, and the policy will not be stretched to cover property not within the description. If a building is described this does not include separate structures used in connection with it, nor fixtures constituting no part of the structure. Unless expressly excepted, however, insurance covers those things which have been so annexed as to become a part of the realty but none others. The term store fixtures covers fittings, fixtures, furniture used in the course of trade, whether they are part of the realty or not. Likewise the term "stock" used in a mercantile business includes everything usually kept for sale, in that business, but nothing more; while household furniture includes all articles necessary and convenient for housekeeping. With respect to future additions these are covered by the policy unless it is so drawn as to show a clear intent to exclude them.

The risk usually begins with the date of the policy, unless it is effected by a preliminary contract. In such a case the risk begins from the date of the preliminary contract, and continues for the period fixed in the policy, or, if none has been fixed, for a reasonable time.

A misrepresentation voids a policy generally. It must not only be false in fact, but the insured must have known that it was false when making it in a substantial and material respect. The misstatement of an agent of the insured will have the same effect. Indeed, any fraud of the insured in procuring the policy has the effect of voiding it if the insurer chooses to do so. Of course, the wrongful facts or acts of the insured possess a varied character. His conduct in concealing facts that ought to have been made known to the insurer may have that effect. Thus to conceal a fact of which the insured had knowledge, and which, if known by the insurer the risk probably would not have been taken, is a fraud rightly available to the insurer.

The parties to an insurance contract may agree that the questions put by the insurer and the answers given by the insured shall become a warranty. This, as experience has shown, is a simpler way of effecting a policy of insurance. When this is done a misrepresentation constitutes a breach of warranty and the contract becomes void.

The modern policy provides that it shall be void if the insured "now has or shall hereafter make or procure any other contract of insurance, whether valid or not, on property covered in whole or in part by this policy." If the insured effects other insurance he must not forget to obtain consent of the insurer, and should he forget his good intention will not preserve his policy. Nor can the insured protect himself by canceling the prior policy if he breaks the condition. Nor does its expiration revive the subsequent policy. An overstatement of existing insurance under an express warranty will also violate the policy. While forgetfulness or good intention will not save the insured in such cases, insurance obtained by a third person without the knowledge of the insured on the same property will not endanger his rights under his policy.

If a fire occurs and a loss results, this may be total or partial. In every case of loss fire must be the proximate cause of the loss. What loss is covered by a policy has been the subject of frequent controversy. Damage by water used to extinguish a fire is usually covered; also damage to or loss of goods removed to prevent their destruction from fire in the insured or another building. Likewise the loss caused by blowing up a building to check a fire, likewise damage from an explosion which is the direct result of a fire, "but an explosion due to the ignition of a match or spark of an explosive substance, no fire resulting, is not within the terms of an ordinary fire policy." The standard policies contain a clause relieving the insured from liability to pay for property stolen during the progress of a fire, or during the removal of property necessitated by fire.

An exception of liability from lightning, unless followed by fire, excludes recovery unless there is loss from burning, but it is quite common to insure against loss from lightning as well as fire.

Unless there is a stipulation in the policy the insurer is not relieved from liability by mere negligence or carelessness of the insured or his servants though directly contributing to the loss; on the other hand, the insured who does not take reasonable care to avoid loss from his negligence or that of his servants may defeat recovery under his policy. This rule is not easy of application, cases of clearly proved negligence are numerous, also cases free from negligence, a third class of a doubtful nature. The field of the law is open in every direction to these.

For a total loss the insurer is liable for the entire value of the property to the limit covered by the insurance. Thus the loss of a building is total though some of the walls remain standing, but not when the remnant can be restored. In some states the statutes provide that in case of total loss the insurer shall be liable for the full amount of insurance, and shall not be allowed to show that the property was of less value than the amount insured.

When the loss is partial the insurer is liable only for the amount of the loss, not exceeding the insurance. The policy may limit the amount of recovery to the cost of restoring or replacing the property, and in such cases this is often done instead of paying the loss in money. If each of several classes or items is separately valued, thereby separating the liability for them, the recovery for any one class or item is limited to the damage to the same.

Lastly, in fixing the loss the distinction between open and valued policies must be explained. A fire policy is generally written in such a way that the liability of the insurer depends on the amount of the loss to be determined after the loss has occurred. When this is done, the valuation of the property in the application for a policy or in the policy, does not fix the liability of the insurer, even though the loss be total. This is called an open policy. On the other hand the loss may be fixed by a stipulation in the policy, and which binds the insurer to pay the whole sum insured in case of total loss. This is called a valued policy. A policy is regarded as an open one, unless it appears to have been the intention of the parties on a fair and reasonable construction of its terms, to value the loss and so fix by contract the amount that may be recovered.

Fixtures.—A fixture is something annexed to land either temporarily or permanently. Different rules apply to persons in different relations. The law favors removal by a tenant presuming that he does not put in things for the landlord's benefit, unless there is an agreement to that effect between them. On the other hand a different rule applies between the seller and purchaser of real estate. As between them the law presumes that the seller intended to keep the things affixed to the house, especially ranges and the like. On the other hand a somewhat different rule applies between mortgagor and mortgagee. The former is favored, but not so much as the tenant. Suppose the mortgagor was a nurseryman, and the land was taken for the debt by the mortgagee, would it include the trees and shrubs that had been planted for sale? The courts have given an affirmative answer.

The facts that are of special value in finding out whether a thing is a fixture or not are: (1) the actual annexation of the article to the realty; (2) the immediate object or purpose of the annexation; (3) the adaptability for permanent or mere temporary use; (4) and whether the article can be removed without material injury to the property to which it is annexed. See Lease.

Garage Keeper.—The garage has been said to be the modern substitute for the ancient livery stable. A garage man who receives the automobile of another to keep or repair—a service for which the owner is to pay a compensation—is a bailee for hire. While this relation of bailor and bailee exists, the owner is not ordinarily responsible for the negligence of the garageman or his servants in the care or operation of the automobile.

A public garage is not a nuisance. Even the storage of gasoline in suitable tanks set down in the earth is not a nuisance. Yet the business may become a nuisance when conducted in some localities, or in an improper manner. The operation of a public garage may therefore be enjoined in a purely residential section within a short distance of large churches, a parochial school and houses. Likewise the odors, the noise, and the fire hazard, which are occasioned by the construction and management of a garage, create a situation which justifies public regulation.

A garage keeper is generally allowed a lien on an automobile for storage and repairs. If no price has been fixed in advance, the garage keeper is entitled to recover of the owner the reasonable value of the services and materials furnished. When the automobile is brought to the garage by a chauffeur, the garage keeper should assure himself of the chauffeur's authority to order repairs, especially those of a permanent nature.

The garage keeper when storing a car for another for compensation must exercise reasonable care and prudence. If negligent he is liable for the damage. It is said that the liability of a garage keeper for hire is not affected by reason of the knowledge of the owner as to the place where the property is kept. Its acceptance by the garageman imposes on him the duty of exercising due care for its safety and protection. But he is not an insurer of the property; and therefore is not liable for loss by fire unless he has been negligent. Generally, in such a case the burden of proof is on the owner of the machine to show that the fire was caused by the negligence of the garageman. Sometimes one keeps a car for another for accommodation, receiving no compensation therefor. One who thus serves another is liable only for gross negligence.

The garage keeper must protect the property from theft. If he permits a machine to remain in an alley when it ought to have been inside his garage, he is liable. In one case a motorcyclist left his machine with a garage keeper to be kept over night, and also gave permission for its inspection by any one whom he might send around. A person appeared with a permit to inspect it who, under the permission, stole it and rode away. The garage keeper was rightfully held not liable.

If a garage keeper or his servant negligently runs a machine left in his custody for storage or repairs, the garageman is liable for the damage resulting to the owner. At the expiration of the bailment he must deliver the machine to the owner or person authorized by him to receive it, and is liable if neglecting or refusing. He is also liable if delaying unreasonably to make repairs, or for making them unskillfully. Lastly, if the car is driven by the garageman's servant while the bailment continues, the bailee, and not the owner, is responsible for any injury done to a third person by the servant's negligence. Of course, if the driver was acting outside the scope of his authority, and was using the car for personal purposes, neither the garageman nor the owner would be responsible for whatever happened. See Automobile: Chauffeur.

Homestead.—A legal homestead is the home or residence of a family land owner, and includes a specific area varying in the several states. By the more general rule the land must be connected in a single piece, though in some states the pieces may be distinct. Though divided by a highway this does not effect a separation, as the land therein belongs to the owner subject to the public rights to pass and repass and also use to keep the highway in repair. The peculiarity about a homestead is, it is protected by law from seizure by the owner's creditors.

One of the most important questions relating to a homestead is, the meaning of the head of a family. The term is not limited to a man having a wife and children. It includes an unmarried man with whom his widowed sister and children reside; or a man who supports his mother; likewise an unmarried woman with whom the children of a deceased sister are living. Nor need they live under the same roof, the essential thing is the relation and dependence existing between them. On the death of a husband owning a homestead the right survives to the widow, and usually to the minor children. Some statutes give her the absolute estate, others a life interest; in some states she loses the homestead by a subsequent marriage. In most states the rights of surviving children end on attaining their majority. In many states the surviving husband is entitled to the homestead right, even though there be no children. A husband does not lose his homestead when his wife withdraws from the family under a decree of divorce. Non-residents as a rule are not within the privilege of the homestead laws.

On the dissolution of a marriage by divorce, as the wife ceases to be a member of the husband's family, she loses her rights to the homestead. The decree of divorce may, in the dissolution of the marriage, reserve to her the right, and if she is the owner of the homestead she may continue to occupy it as one. The mere desertion of husband or wife by the other spouse will not, in itself, destroy the character of the homestead although an entire dissolution of the family will have that effect.

By the federal law every head of a family, or a person twenty-one years old and a citizen, or intended citizen, of the United States, if not the owner elsewhere in the United States of one hundred and sixty acres of land and has not previously obtained a federal homestead, is entitled to a quarter section or less of the public land. Three things are necessary: (1) An affidavit showing that the applicant comes under the law; (2) a formal application; (3) payment of the land office charges. When these things are done, the certificate of entry is delivered to the applicant and the entry is made. Then the entryman must actually reside on and cultivate the land for three years, and at the end of that period, he is entitled to a patent. The lands thus acquired are not liable for any debts contracted prior to the issuing of the patent.

The head of a family can sell or mortgage his homestead, whether he is solvent or not, nor can his creditors prevent its sale since they have no rights therein. And if he sells his homestead and with the proceeds buys another, the second is as fully protected from creditors as the other.

From liability for most debts a homesteader is exempt, but not for all. Generally the homestead is not exempt from taxes, but not everywhere from fines for public offenses or liability on official bonds. Debts contracted prior to the acquisition of the homestead and pre-existing liens in most states are enforceable against the homestead. So are debts contracted in improving or preserving the homestead. These include materials furnished, also the wages of clerks, servants, laborers and mechanics.

Husband and Wife.—The law, while regarding marriage as a contract, adds something more, for it cannot be terminated by the will or consent of the parties; a contract on the other hand in most cases can be. To constitute a marriage there must be an agreement or mutual assent by the parties. This agreement must be made freely, seriously and not as a joke. False representations of health, wealth, etc., do not invalidate the agreement, yet these may be grave enough to have that effect. Consent may be obtained by deceit or compulsion so gross as to justify a court in declaring that the parties were never legally married. A person may be too defective mentally to give an intelligent assent. A subsequent mental weakening would be no ground for annulling a marriage. An Illinois court recently remarked, it is a harsh rule that would permit a married man whose wife later in life became insane to put her away on account of her misfortune. If one were so intoxicated that he did not act intelligently, he could avoid his marriage.

A male at common law can marry at fourteen, a female at twelve. By statute a later date, twenty-one for males and eighteen for females has been fixed in many states. The right to disaffirm a marriage on the ground of non-age, unlike the parties to a contract, applies to both parties.

In this country marriage is regulated largely by the states, though a movement has been started to make marriage and divorce a matter of national regulation.

As marriages are of higher character than other contracts relating to the ordinary dealings of men, even those that are prohibited by law are for reasons of public policy not always void. They are therefore not void, simply because the formalities prescribed by statute in obtaining the license and solemnizing the marriage have not been observed, when the parties afterward live together like other married people.

A marriage ceremony is not void though performed by one outside his jurisdiction, or not having a license obtained at the proper place. Persons who improperly grant licenses and solemnize marriages may themselves suffer legally, but their wrongful action cannot be visited on others. The principle still prevails in most states that a marriage which is good by the common law, though contrary to statutory forms unless there is an express prohibition, is a valid marriage. In a few states a common law marriage is invalid.

A marriage that is valid by the law of the state where it was made, is valid everywhere. Nevertheless, the courts have great difficulty in applying the principle. Suppose that the resident of a state, for the purpose of evading its marriage laws, should go into another state and have the marriage solemnized, and then return, is the marriage valid in that state? No, but to lessen the rigor of the rule, the courts hold that both parties must have intended to evade the law, if, therefore, one of them was innocent the marriage was valid.

After marriage the husband's domicile becomes that of his wife, and her refusal to follow him without good cause, would be in law a desertion. It is said that a promise before marriage not to take her away from her mother and friends will not justify her in refusing to go with him. If, however, she had immediately after marriage, determined to separate from him and to take legal steps to that end, she could legally remain.

A married woman by the common law is answerable personally for her crimes as though she were unmarried, unless they were committed in her husband's presence. When together the law presumes she acted from his coercion, he therefore must be the sufferer, while she escapes. This rule though does not apply to the gravest crimes; for these both are liable. Like so many other legal rules the difficulty is in applying it. How near to the husband must she be when committing a wrong to render him liable and escape herself. In one of the cases a married woman was properly indicted for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors. At the time of selling them she was alone in the room, though she had sold them by her husband's order.

As the law regards husband and wife as one person, many peculiar things flow from this relation. Thus one cannot steal from the other; but either is criminally liable for an assault committed on the other. By statute in some states the right of either party to sue the other for wrongs has been greatly extended; nor is the husband liable for wrongs committed by his wife unless he participated in them. For example, in some states he is not liable for slanderous words spoken by her in his absence; in other states his liability continues. On the other hand, a wife who can manage and control her separate estate may in turn be liable for the wrongs of her husband while he is acting with authority as her agent.

A husband has a right of action for damages against any person who alienates his wife's affections. Nor can he be defeated by showing that he and his wife did not live happily together. Such facts though may be used to prove that her society was worth less than it would have been had they lived happily, in fact, by money valuation was not worth three cents. A husband forfeits his right to sue others for entertainment when his own misconduct justified and actually caused the separation, otherwise his remedy is complete against all persons whatsoever who have lent their countenance to any agreement for breaking up his household. On the other hand, this is a one-sided rule in some states; in others a wife has the same right to sue for the alienation of her husband's affections as he has for the alienation of hers.

By statute great changes have been made in the way of permitting married women to retain their property and manage it, and to do business. Formerly, all the personal property of a married woman went immediately by law to her husband, and he became responsible for her debts. She still retained her real estate and the management of it. Now, very generally, she also retains her personal property, also the income, very much as if she were unmarried. She often appoints him as her agent to manage her property, and when thus acting he is responsible to others and to her like any other agent. He may contract for erecting any building or improvement on her land, but should he contract in his own name for such improvement she cannot be held therefor, nor can any one who has done work or furnished materials put a lien thereon for them. It may be added that his right to act as her agent is never implied solely from the marital relation.

A wife may act in a representative capacity as agent for her husband, or for other persons, and may execute a power conferred on her by deed or will. She may also be appointed to act as executor, administrator or guardian, though under the common law theory her husband's consent was needful to her acceptance of any of these undertakings.

The common law relations of husband and wife have been greatly changed by statute since about 1844. "It is now," says Peck, "the usual rule of law throughout the United States, established in each state by its own statutes that the wife retains title to the property owned by her before marriage or acquired by her during the marriage, and the right to manage, use or sell it, without the concurrence of her husband. The right to contract, and to sue and be sued, naturally follows from her ownership and control of her property; in most of the states these rights are expressly conferred by statute; and in some they have been held to result by necessary implication."

The husband is generally relieved from liability for her debts or for her torts, except for such debts as are for her support or that of the family, or are within her express or implied agency to act for him. The common law estate of dower and curtesy are retained in some of the states, in the larger number they are materially modified by statute, or wholly abolished and replaced by a right of succession to each other's property as defined by statute.

The distinctive duties resting on a husband are to provide a home, to support his wife and children, to protect her and them from injury or insult. Thus a husband has the same right to protect his wife, to assert and maintain her rights, even to kill a person, if necessary in her defense, that he would have in his own behalf.

The duty of a husband to provide a home implies his right to select and fix the marital abode. The wife must live with him, and a refusal on her part to live in the home provided by him would constitute her a deserter. But he must select a home in good faith and in reasonable accordance with his means and their accustomed mode of life.

It is his duty to maintain order and law in his household. He is therefore liable to prosecution should his wife carry on the illegal sale of liquor, or in other ways defy the law.

A husband cannot chastise his wife, but he may use force to restrain her from committing a violent criminal wrong. Says a competent author: "That depends rather on the right of every one to use reasonable efforts to prevent violence and crime than on any peculiar power of the husband over the wife, and it would also justify like restraint of the husband by the wife."

It is the duty of the wife to assist in the maintenance of the family by such reasonable labor as the necessities of the family and their circumstances in life and financial position require; while the husband has no right to require her to do more than to care for the house and the family in the customary and proper manner. He cannot compel her to engage in business, to work for wages, nor to work for him in his business. The services of any kind which either may render to the other, or for the family, are rendered in consideration of the marriage relation, and of the mutual benefit received therefrom and neither has any right of action against the other for them.

It should be noted that the legislative revolution for the benefit of married women has chiefly affected the property relations of husband and wife, while their personal rights remain quite as before. Probably no single rule of the common law was so bitterly resented and so difficult to defend, as the vesting in the husband of the sole guardianship of their children. By statute in many states both parents are made guardian of them, and if they separate, the welfare of the children is regarded as the decisive question in fixing their guardianship, rather than the superior right of either parent.

A husband and wife by the modern law may agree to live separately. The arrangement in some states is effected through a trustee, in others this may be done by the parties themselves. By this the parties may agree on the disposition and division of their property when this can be done freely and intelligently. A separation agreement made through fear of her husband cannot be sustained.

A wife who voluntarily enters into an agreement of separation covering all property rights cannot, after her husband's death, have it set aside and then claim her rights in his estate, except in some states where community rights exist. On the other hand, her right to share in her husband's estate is not lost though she lives apart from him by agreement, unless this shows a clear intention to relinquish all claims to his estate.

The husband must support his wife. This is the law everywhere. While they live together the law presumes that he has given her authority to purchase necessaries on his credit, and therefore a tradesman can recover who shows that they were thus living and that the things furnished befitted their condition in life. When she is living apart from her husband the presumption is the other way, and a tradesman cannot recover without proof of the fact of her husband's authority to let her have the goods. But when she is living apart from him for good cause, and would starve if the things needful to sustain life did not come from some source, she has an absolute right to pledge her husband's credit for them.

What are the things for which she may pledge her husband's credit? Those required to sustain life and preserve decency, besides other things to maintain her in her social condition. Wearing apparel, furniture, jewelry, even legal expenses incurred in regaining her conjugal rights have been included.

Besides agreements to live separately, the law for several causes permits absolute separation. These are prescribed by statute, and vary greatly in the different states. Adultery is a cause recognized in all of them, for which an absolute divorce can be granted. Cruelty is another cause, almost as general, though more difficult to define. Actual violence is not necessary to constitute cruelty, threats of violence with an intention to do bodily harm will suffice. Again, the cruelty must be unmerited. If she has justly provoked the indignation of her husband, then his cruelty presents a different aspect. Nevertheless, if his cruelty bears no relation to her wrongful beginnings, she still has good ground for separation.

Desertion is a general ground of divorce, the law in every state prescribing a period of time, quite often three years. The period must be continuous. An offer to return made by the deserted spouse in good faith at any time before the separation has run for the statutory period will bar a divorce, but not if the offer is made afterward. Again, a husband who drives his wife away from him by his misconduct deserts her as clearly as if he had left her. To cease living together for the time fixed by statute is not desertion unless this was done intentionally. For example, separation on account of business, sickness, etc., is not desertion. Not only must there be an intention to leave the other party, this must be without consent.

Another cause for divorce, quite generally recognized, is habitual drunkenness. This must be of a gross and confirmed nature. While other causes exist the most general have now been mentioned. In some states there is a more general ground, any reason rendering married life a failure. Of course, much depends on the discretion, mental and moral make-up of a judge in applying the facts to a cause for separation that is so general. An agreement in advance to make a cause of divorce is everywhere condemned by the law.

Divorces are of two kinds: from the bond of marriage, often called absolute divorces, which put an end to the marriage relation and render the parties single; and divorces from bed and board, limited divorces, more accurately called judicial separations, in which the marriage relation is not dissolved, but the injured party is given the right to live separate from the other. In more than half of the American states no distinction is made between kind of divorce, all divorces are absolute, from the bond of marriage.

The legal effect of divorces is still a grave matter. When a divorce has been legally granted by a state, the courts of every other state for obvious reasons recognize and try to uphold the decree or judgment, though not all of them, and consequently strange results follow. Thus a person who was married and living in New York leaves his wife for good reason and goes to Connecticut. After acquiring a legal residence there and proper standing in a court, he applies for a divorce, the proceedings are regular in every respect and a divorce is granted. He marries again and takes his wife to New York for a visit. There he is sued by the first wife for support, moreover, by the laws of New York he is an adulterer. In New York he is still married to the first wife, in Connecticut to the second. If children are born of the second marriage they are legitimate as long as they live in Connecticut, illegitimate should they go to New York. One of the latest legal writers on this difficult subject says: "Foreign divorce judgments granted in states where the plaintiff had obtained an actual, bona fide residence, will doubtless continue to be recognized by the great majority of our states, but the states of New York, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and possibly some other states, which have adopted the extreme New York doctrine, are permitted by the rule established in the Haddock case—a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States—to continue to refuse recognition of divorce judgments in other states."

Innkeeper.—An innkeeper's house is a public place to which travelers may resort. He cannot therefore prohibit persons who come under that character in a proper manner and at suitable times from entering, so long as he can accommodate them. He is not obliged to receive one who cannot pay for his entertainment. Indeed, he must exclude some persons who apply, notably thieves. He can refuse to admit all whom he has reason to believe will disturb the peace and safety of his guests; and can afterward exclude all who, though admitted, prove to be noisy and disturbers of the comfort and safety of others. And if having a stable he is under the same obligation to receive and care for horses as he is to receive the person to whom they belong. Again, he is not required to provide a guest with the precise room he may select, but only reasonable and proper accommodations. If he refuses to do so he is liable in law to the applicant.

In caring for the baggage of a guest, the law is not as well settled as it might be. A competent writer has said: "They are insurers of the property of their guests committed to their care, and are liable for its loss, unless caused by the act of God, a public enemy, or the neglect or fault of the owner or his servants." This strictness of liability, it is said is necessary to protect travelers against any collusion between the innkeeper and his servants, and to compel him to take care that no improper persons are admitted into his house. His charge for the entertainment of his guests is sufficient to cover this risk; he also has a lien on their property entrusted to his care to indemnify him against loss.

By statute in many states innkeepers are exempt from loss by fires which are in no way caused by their own negligence or that of their servants. If a horse dies while in the innkeeper's charge, he is liable unless he can show facts that excuse him.

If the goods of a guest are stolen by the innkeeper's servants or domestics, by another guest, or by someone outside the inn, the innkeeper must make restitution, for it is his duty to provide honest servants, and to exercise an exact vigilance over all persons coming into his house as guests or otherwise. His responsibility extends to all his servants and domestics, and he is bound in every event to pay for them if stolen, unless they were stolen by a servant or companion of the guest. Illness or absence of the innkeeper does not excuse him. An innkeeper is not liable for the loss of a guest's property when this loss is due to the fault or negligence of the guest himself. Thus an unnecessary display of money or valuables, or leaving them where they would tempt thieves, may be negligence. But failure to lock or bolt his door is not necessarily negligence on the part of a guest. It is only evidence of negligence. Nor is an innkeeper exonerated when a theft is committed by a fellow guest with whom the owner of the property stolen had consented to occupy the same room.

An innkeeper may make needful and reasonable regulations that are to be observed by his guests to secure the safety of his property. When they are made and brought to the knowledge of a guest he is bound by them. By contract, custom and statute the responsibility of an innkeeper may be changed. In many states by statute an innkeeper avoids liability for the valuables of his guest unless they are deposited with him. These statutes are construed strictly in favor of the guest. Nor can an innkeeper even by these exempt himself from everything, for if a guest were required to deposit all he had to secure such protection, he would be in a strange fix. Said a Georgia court: "Is the guest to deposit his valise there, and go and send for it to get out a clean shirt?"

If a guest goes away, leaving his valise or other things with an innkeeper, he is not required after a reasonable time to observe such diligence in keeping them as he receives nothing in the way of compensation for so doing.

Keepers of lodging and boarding houses are not innkeepers, nor subject to their liabilities. The proprietor of such a house does not hold himself out to the world as prepared to supply accommodations for all who may apply, nor is he required to receive any persons unless he chooses to do so; an innkeeper's freedom is restricted in this respect. A house may have a double character of boarding house and inn. With transient persons who, without a definite contract, remain from day to day it is an inn; with those under definite contract it is a boarding house.

Land License.—A license is an authority to do something on another's land without acquiring ownership therein, and may be given orally, or it may be simply a permission to use or occupy. A license may be executory, relating to a future act, or it may relate to an act already done or executed. An executory license may be revoked at any time. Thus A laid a water pipe by permission across B's land who afterward rendered the pipe useless by cutting it. A had no redress, for B was acting within his rights. A ought to have obtained written authority for such action. He could, however, remove the pipe or any other improvement he had made on the strength of the license granted to him.

A license may be to do many things on another's land. Thus one may have a license to flood land, erect buildings, pass overland, maintain a ditch, cut timber, use land for railroad purposes. A common form of license is a ticket of admission to enter another's land to witness a spectacle or similar purpose.

No formality is needed to create a license. It may be in writing or be oral, or implied from the relations or conduct of the parties, as where a land owner assents to the doing of certain acts on his land. A person by opening a place of business licenses the public to enter therein for the purpose of transacting business. And a license to do a particular act necessarily involves any act essential thereto.

A license is usually revocable at the pleasure of the licensor, even though it be in writing and under seal, or a consideration has been given. If the licensee has expended money and made improvements on the faith of the license, can it be revoked? On this question the courts divide. The more general opinion seems to be that a license coupled with a grant or interest cannot be revoked. Or, if a license has in effect been so used as to become an easement it remains a burden on the land though sold to a purchaser, unless he had no knowledge of it. A license cannot be assigned by the licensee to another.

Again it is said that the revocation only affects the future exercise of the privilege, and does not prevent the licensee from removing structures or other movable articles placed by him thereon relying on the license, provided he does this within a reasonable time after the revocation. Even should the owner of land sell, the sale would not operate as a revocation to one to remove trees that he had already cut under a contract of sale and removal.

If a person grants a license to another to come on his land, he owes no duty to him except the negative one of not wantonly injuring or exposing him to danger. Merchants invite the public into their stores to buy wares, but those who accompany them without any intention of purchasing are not invitees, they are mere licensees. The duty of the storekeeper to one who enters his premises by mere license is not to keep the premises in a non-hazardous state, but only to abstain from acts willfully injurious to him.

Lease.—A lease is for the use of land, usually for a few years or shorter period. The lessor is more generally known as the landlord, and the lessee as the tenant. The lease may be oral, though the better way is to put the agreement in writing. If it be for a house or other building the lessee should insist on this, otherwise he would fare much worse should the building be destroyed by fire. Doubtless many do not know that, unless the lessee makes a specific agreement relieving himself, he is liable for the rent of a building, just the same if it is burned down as if he were still the occupier. This is the common law, which has been changed in some states by statute.

If the lease is for more than a year, or other short period, the Statute of Frauds, so called, requires that it must be in writing. If the time be less, a verbal lease may be made, even though the lessee does not take immediate possession of the premises. If on the other hand, it exceeds the statutory period, it is not absolutely void, but continues during the joint wills of both parties, and may therefore cease at the will of either party. If the landlord wishes to terminate it, he must give the tenant notice to quit; should he disregard the law and take immediate possession he would be a trespasser.

When the terms of a lease are in doubt, they are construed in favor of the tenant. A lease to a specified day continues during the whole of it, though custom or statute may prescribe a different rule. A term may also continue during the option of either of the parties to be ended on notice by the party exercising the option.

The most usual agreements or covenants in a lease are on the part of the lessor for quiet enjoyment, which secures the tenant against any hindrance or disturbance of his possession and enjoyment of the premises from persons deriving their title from the landlord, or from any one else who claims to be the owner. Also against all encumbrances, in other words, that no one has any easements or other rights in the premises. The landlord also usually agrees to repair, and often to renew the lease, and the lessee to pay rent, to insure and not to assign or underlet, without the landlord's consent. The parties may of course agree to do any other lawful thing, for example, sometimes the tenant agrees to make repairs, to reside in the premises, not to engage in some kinds of business, to cultivate the land, if the lease be of a farm, in a specified way. Again though an oral lease for a term of years at a stated annual rent may not fulfill the requirement of the Statute of Frauds, the parties may conform to it and thus create a tenancy in fact from which the law will imply a leasing from year to year. If therefore the tenant with the acquiescence of the landlord continues in possession for several months after the expiration of the original term, a tenancy for another year will be created with a corresponding liability on the part of the tenant for a full year's rent. And the measure and extent of the tenant's liability would be the same, whether his continued occupancy related to the original lease, or to a subsequent one just like it, made as the first was soon to expire.

The definite period for which a lease is given is called a term. If a lease is from the first day of January, it begins on the second day and lasts through the last day mentioned; in carefully drawn leases the number of days is fixed to avoid all dispute. A lease for a year with the privilege of remaining three years or longer does not mean a single period of three years, but three yearly periods as the tenant may elect.

A lease may be made to take effect in the future, provided the time for taking possession is not so far away as to violate some statute to the contrary. A lease for an hundred years in some states is deemed a parting with the absolute title to lands though railroads make long leases running for ninety-nine years. If the length of the term is not definitely expressed in the lease, the time may be ascertained by other evidence. When a lease is to run for one or more years "from" a specified day, the corresponding day of the year is excluded from the term, unless a contrary custom exists. A lease to a specified day ends with its expiration. If there be a doubt on which of two days a lease terminates, the lessee may decide. More generally, leases of doubtful duration are construed in favor of the tenants. By statute in New York leases which do not specify the length of occupation, extend to the first of the following May after taking possession.

A lease must describe clearly the premises, nor can a defective description be cured by outside evidence. Any language will suffice that shows the intention of the parties. The words "grant," "demise," and "to farm let," have a technical meaning, and are generally used, but other words may be and often are used. A memorandum expressing the consent of the owner that another shall have immediate possession of the premises, and shall continue to occupy them at a specified rent and for a definite term, is a sufficient lease; in general, any agreement under which one person obtains the right of enjoyment to property of another, with his consent and in subordination.

A distinction exists between a lease and an agreement for a lease, which should be understood, though it sometimes is not by the parties themselves. If the agreement is a lease, it cannot be changed by other evidence, for it is a completed contract; but if it is an agreement for a lease, then it is not complete and other evidence may be produced to show what the parties intended. How can the nature of the agreement be tested? By ascertaining whether it is complete or not. Thus A wrote to B that he would take his home at a stipulated rent for two years if he would put in a furnace, with which offer B at once complied.

This was a lease, for by putting in the furnace nothing more remained to be done. If he had not put in the furnace, or not before the time A was to take possession, there would have been no lease, unless A had waived his offer and taken possession.

Of course to make a valid lease there must be competent parties. A lease made by a minor is not void, but he may avoid or cancel it by some positive act. Can he do this before attaining his majority? On this the authorities differ. Again appears the risk of making contracts with minors, though the situation many times seems clearly to justify such action. A guardian may lease his minor's land for the period of his minority; if leased beyond, the ward may have the lease canceled for the excess. A lease terminates on the death of the ward, whatever may be the length of the term. A parent cannot lease the land of his minor child like a guardian.

By common law a lease made by a married woman was avoided after her husband's death. The modern statutes excluding her husband's power of control over her property and authorizing her to take and hold property as if she were an unmarried woman, have abolished both his power to invalidate the lease and also her power to repudiate it after his death.

A private corporation may make a lease of its property provided that in doing so it acts within its charter. A municipal corporation, while it may lease property belonging thereto of a private nature, cannot lease property which has been devoted to public use. A corporation whether public or private may take a lease of property so far as this may be a proper means of carrying out the purposes for which the corporation was created.

Executors and administrators may dispose of a lease belonging to the deceased, or make new leases for terms within the period covered by it. Trustees have a still larger authority to lease the lands entrusted to them, unless restricted by the terms of their trusteeship, or by statute. Though a member of a partnership, as we have seen, is an agent, he cannot make valid lease of partnership land.

What may be leased? Besides land, the right to a wharf, to flow with water the land of another, to go over another's land. An ordinary boarder, who has a room and boards in the house of another and who retains the possession and care of his room, is not a tenant. On the other hand the letting of an entire floor for lodgings may create a tenancy, and so may even a single room. A lease for an unlawful purpose is void, for example, for the sale of spirituous liquors contrary to law.

If the premises are occupied by the lessee and his rent is paid as specified in the lease, this is regarded as a ratification by him of an invalid or void lease. To this rule are some exceptions.