4. Immaterial that bonds in dispute are not the identical ones delivered to the bankrupt by the town. The contract contemplated the use of the entire issue, and a return in kind. Ibid 5. Vendee from vendor with apparently absolute title, protected from a trust sought to be set up, if he shows that he had no notice that trust funds went into property; that he had knowledge that vendor had mingled trust funds with his own, insufficient; onus of identifying trust property is not on purchaser, if innocent. Hathorn et al. vs. Maynard, 168.

6. Deed conveys four-sevenths of land in trust to one party and three-sevenths not in trust to another, error to instruct jury that they may find all was trust property, regardless of the Ideed. Ibid.

7. Vendee may rely on vendor's assurances that no trust funds are in the property bought, if he acted thereon as a prudent man. Ibid.

8. Purchaser without notice from trustee who had mingled his and his cestuis que trust funds, acquires title to property of which trustee was apparently the owner. Purchaser need not show that the property left was enough to settle with the cestuis que trust. Ibid.

9. Cestuis que trust, fully paid by conyeyance to them of property of equal value with original amount received, cannot recover. Ibid.

10. Minor beneficiary of trust property illegally sold, after attaining majority, repudiated sale and brought ejectment for lot, bill to enjoin the same, claiming compensation for improvements innocently placed thereon by purchaser, would not be without equity. Iverson, trustee, et al. vs. Saulsbury, trustee, et al., 724.

II. Chancellor at chambers has jurisdiction to order sale of part of trust estate to pay debt which was an incumbrance on whole estate, the cestui que trust assenting and all parties having notice and being represented. Ibid.

12. Purchaser with notice of trust, but also of fact that grantor held the claim which bound the trust estate, receiving trustee's deed, under an order of chancellor, conveying portion of trust estate, would stand in equity on same footing as a purchaser without notice. Ibid.

13. Beneficiaries of trust property illegally sold, who for years have seen the purchasers erecting valuable improvements thereon v 65-55

without objection, are estopped from setting up title thereto. Ibid.

14. Would a minor old enough to understand his rights be estopped by like conduct? Quære. Ibid.

15. Equity has jurisdiction to settle a trust estate; that a court of law has concurrent jurisdiction will not oust that of equity, especially where fraud is charged. Park vs. Park, 746. 16. Will provide that executor should keep money and property bequeathed to minor until her majority, free from liability for hire or interest, bill by the legatee, after she came of age, for account and settlement, charging fraudulent use of the funds by executor, was not demurrable for want of equity. Ibid.

USURY. See Interest and Usury.

VENUE. See Jurisdiction, 10.

VERDICT.

1. Impeach verdict, jurors cannot; much less will it be set aside on affidavit of party as to what jurors told him. Smith, governor, vs. Banks et al., 26.

2. Reasonable interpretation of verdict for the plaintiffs for an amount, would be, a finding against the defendants who were made parties to that case, and no other. Saulsbury, Respess & Co. vs. Blandys, 45.

3. Illegal, though verdict may be, yet where no error based thereon is assigned, a new trial will not be granted. Brent vs. Mount, 92.

4. Suit was brought for purchase money of land in 1866, to which defendant filed a plea under the relief act of 1868, and a verdict was rendered, when it does not appear, for the plaintiff the return of the land." A judgment was entered on this verdict in 1870, that plaintiff recover of defendant certain described land which the latter had bought of him. Such verdict and judgment are not void for uncertainty. McWilliams vs. Walthall et al., executors, 109.

5. Bail-trover, where an alternative verdict for money has been found, to be discharged by delivery of the property in twenty days; where the defendant fails so to deliver, verdict becomes absolute for money. Southern Express Co. vs. Lynch, 240. 6. Excess of verdict which is too large ordered written off. Richards vs. Hunt, Rankin & Lamar, 342: Jordan vs. Jordan, 351; Rockdale Paper Mills vs. Stevens, 380.

7. Where equitable pleas set up facts for jury to pass on, a verdict covering those facts is sufficient if it so decides the issues on trial that a decree may be moulded thereon. Robinson et al. vs. Alexander et ux., 406.

8. Equity being done by upholding verdict, supported by testimony, with directions, it is so ordered. Ibid.

9. Alimony, verdict for, is not illegal because it does not provide for payment of husband's debts; they may be considered in determining if verdict is excessive. Halleman vs. Halleman, 476.

10. Contrary to law and inconsistent with itself, verdict set aside. Hall, administrator, vs. Spivey, 693.

WAIVER.

1. Benefits taken under a contract without objection, with knowledge that same has been broken by other party, waives breach. Cabaniss et al., assignees, vs. Ponder, mayor, et al., 134.

2. Decree cannot be set aside on motion, but objection to remedy can be waived. Coston vs. Dudley, executor, et al., 252. 3. Motion argued without objection and granted, objection to remedy waived. Ibid.

4. Justice of district of defendant's residence disqualified, and suit brought for less than $100.00, and tried on merits before justice of another district, without objection, judgment for plaintiff was valid. Dozier vs. Allen, 255.

5. Justice court trying a demand of over fifty dollars, in 1872, at the time named in a summons made returnable in less than twenty days from date, was without jurisdiction, and defect could not be waived. Thurston et ux. vs. Wilkerson, 557. 6. Appearance by counsel for defendant and action taken in the case, as shown by bench docket, though no plea filed and the judgment is by default, will waive a service only fourteen days before the term of the superior court to which the process is returnable. Lowe, guardian, vs. Burkett, 564.

See Homestead, 17.

WARRANTY. See Trover, 4.

WAY. See Prescription, 2.

WESTERN & ATLANTIC RAILROAD. See Contracts, 16.

WILLS.

1. Construction for court where will is not ambiguous or uncertain. Phill ps, adm'x, vs. Crews et al., 274.

2. All parts of will must be taken together and given effect; if impossible, the last prevails. Ibid.

3. Testator died leaving will disposing of one-half of residue of estate, after certain specific bequests on certain trusts, with remainder over, and after his death the United States granted certain other lands to his heirs and legal representatives; such land did not pass under the will; the heirs and legal representatives took under the grant. Ware et al. vs. Trustees of Emory College et al., 283.

4. Retained, will did not intend that money should be, for purpose of equalization on death of widow, but that that should be done by inter-payments among legatees. Summerlin et al., adm'rs, vs. Dorsett, adm'r, 397.

WITNESS.

1. Purchase money paid by complainant's father, but the deed made to complainant's husband, and he is dead; on a bill to reform deed brought by the wife and daughter against the vendor and her deceased husband's administrator, and to declare it a trust for her benefit, the father who paid the money is competent witness to prove instructions he gave son-in-law as to manner of taking title, while the latter was acting as his agent. Davis, adm'r, et al. vs. McLester, 132.

2. Conclusion as to agreement should be excluded, yet after stating facts of the transaction, witness may give his understanding of it as he heard it from the parties. Phillips vs. Lindsey, 139. 3. Maker's wife is competent to testify that she paid note for husband, although payee is dead. Rush, adm'r, vs. Ross, adm'r, 144.

4. Deeds to the same property made to two different persons by same grantor; in an action of ejectment between the two chains of title, he is a competent witness to show that first deed was without consideration, and to avoid payment of debts, although first grantee is dead. Allen et al., vs. Davis, 179.

5. Rule, in putting witnesses under, safe to swear them and send them out of hearing, but witness remaining not rendered incompetent; may be liable for contempt. Rooks vs. State

330.

6. Jurisdiction, witness out of, general rule is that a continuance will be refused; but where witness has promised, and is reasonably expected, to attend in reasonable time, and his testimony is material, diligence being shown, continuance or postponement should be allowed. Brown vs. State, 332.

7. Compensation of $2.00 per day to witnesses attending out of county of residence, applies only to superior court. Commissioners of Floyd County vs. Black, 384.

8. Party to issue dead, other is incompetent as to what passed between them, or as to what was reported to her as coming from deceased. Robinson et al. vs. Alexander et ux., 406.

9. Prosecutrix cannot be asked as to statements made to an attorney in contemplation of his employment. If she voluntarily testify as to part of her conversation with him on direct examination, other side may inquire concerning the entire conversation. If she refuse to answer as to any part, as tending to criminate her, the whole should be excluded. Young vs. State, 525.

10. Party to cause of action may testify as to contract between himself and agent of other, though principal be dead, the agent being alive, but cannot testify to statements of deceased repeated by said agent touching a past contract between the principals. Freeman, executor, vs. Bigham, 580.

. That agent subsequently became deceased's executor, and a party to the suit, does not alter case; he was not a party to the contract. Ibid.

12. Indorser and payee of note, contest between, in no way affecting maker's liability, maker competent witness though payee was dead; maker no party to contract between indorser and payee. Ibid.

13. Inpeach his own witness, party cannot generally, but may conradict his testimony by other witnesses. Cronan vs. Roberts Co.. 678.