moved away from her, and she would have seen the car approaching. This case cannot be distinguished from McGee v. Railway Co., 102 Mich. 107 (26 L. R. A. 300, 47 Am. St. Rep. 507); Henderson v. Railway Co., 116 Mich. 368; Borschall v. Detroit Railway, 115 Mich. 473. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered. The other Justices concurred. FARWELL v. HALLADAY. BONA FIDE PURCHASER-RECORD-ERRONEOUS INDEX-NOTICEEVIDENCE. A purchaser of lands from one of his neighbors, whom he had long known, and who he knew owned no other land in the vicinity, will be held to have had notice of an incumbrance, where it appears that, before purchasing, he went with the vendor to the office of the register of deeds, where he found a mortgage by the vendor indexed as covering other lands in the same section, the record of which he refused to examine, but which in fact was a record of the mortgage on the land in question, and it further appears that, during the negotiations, this mortgage was referred to as being upon the lands covered by the deed. Appeal from Emmet; Adams, J. Submitted April 5, 1899. Decided June 19, 1899. Bill by Margaret Farwell against Harmon Halladay, Ella E. Halladay, and Fred L. Heller, to foreclose a mortgage. From a decree for complainant, defendant Heller appeals. Affirmed. On May 23, 1882, the defendants Halladay, husband and wife, executed a mortgage to one Simon King, guar dian, for $200, on the N. W. of the S. W. of section 31, town 33 N., range 6 W., which was their homestead. The mortgage was recorded on the following day in the office of the register of deeds for Charlevoix county, volume 7, page 43. The mortgage and the note accompanying the same were afterwards duly assigned to complainant, who filed this bill to foreclose. The Halladays deeded this land to the defendant Heller on May 31, 1887, by warranty deed, which was duly recorded the same day. On the back of the mortgage was the usual certificate by the register of its recording. The mortgage, as written, erroneously described the property as the N. E. of the S. E. of the same section, town, and range. The mistake was discovered before execution, and the correct description written in. Heller claims to be a bona fide purchaser without notice, actual or constructive, of this mortgage. Evidently by mistake of the register, the mortgage was erroneously indexed as against the N. W. of the N. W. of the same section, town, and range. In October, 1887, the volume containing the record of this mortgage was destroyed by fire. Defendant Heller claims that he went with Halladay to the office of the register of deeds at the time of his purchase; that they gave the description of the land to the deputy register of deeds, and asked to have the title examined; that the deputy informed him that there was no mortgage upon the land. They did find, however, the index of a mortgage executed by Halladay and his wife to Mr. King, indexed as above stated. They declined to examine the record of this mortgage. The learned circuit judge filed a written opinion holding that the mortgage was duly recorded by the correct description, and that Heller had notice and knowledge of its existence at the time he purchased. H. R. Lovell, for complainant. GRANT, C. J. (after stating the facts). We think there is ample testimony to sustain the conclusion of the learned circuit judge. Mr. Halladay owned no other land in that section. for many years. We think it is a fair deduction from the evidence that Heller knew of the existence of this mortgage. There was no record of any other undischarged mortgage given by the Halladays. Heller knew that they had given a mortgage. It is evident from the testimony of the witness Garbutt, the attorney for Halladay and Heller, who drew the deed and took the acknowledgment thereof, that this mortgage, was referred to, at the time the negotiations for the purchase were going on, as being upon the land covered by the deed. Heller was his neighbor, and had been Whether, under the circumstances of this case, the index of the mortgage, to which Heller's attention was called at the time, was sufficient to put him upon inquiry, we need not determine. Decree affirmed. MONTGOMERY, HOOKER, and MOORE, JJ., concurred. LONG, J., did not sit. GERARDO v. BRUSH. 1. CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT—AUTHORITY OF AGENT EVIDENCE. A finding that the captain of a yacht was authorized to bind defendant, the owner, by hiring plaintiff for the season as engineer, is sustained by evidence that defendant's attorney sent to the captain a season's contract, signed by defendant, and containing a blank for the engineer's signature, which contract bore date of about the time that the captain had, to defendant's knowledge, hired plaintiff under a parol agreement, the terms of which were in dispute at the trial, but which plaintiff claimed was for a season's employment. 2. SAME-WRONGFUL DISCHARGE BY AGENT-NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL. Where the captain of a yacht is authorized by the owner to discharge subordinates, one whom the captain wrongfully discharges is not obliged, before he can recover for breach of the contract of employment, to seek out the owner and demand the fulfillment of the contract. 3. SAME CONDUCT OF SERVANT AFTER DISCHARGE. The fact that an engineer on a yacht, after his wrongful discharge by the captain, made an assault upon the latter, which, had it occurred during the term of his employment, would have justified his discharge, cannot be urged as a cause for the discharge in defense of an action for breach of the contract of employment. 4. WITNESSES-CREDIBILITY-INSTRUCTIONS. A refusal to instruct that, if the jury should believe that a witness has testified falsely or erroneously in any particular, they may disregard his whole testimony, is not erroneous, since the request does not take into consideration the materiality of the testimony, the intention with which it was given, nor the fact of corroboration by other witnesses. Error to Wayne; Hosmer, J. Submitted April 5, 1899. Decided June 19, 1899. Assumpsit by William Gerardo against Alfred E. Brush for the breach of a contract of employment. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed. 120 405 f158 4147 Plaintiff claims that he was employed as engineer on board the defendant's yacht for the season of 1897, commencing April 1st. His contract was with Capt. Klintworth, the captain of the yacht, and was made about the 27th of March. The contract rested in parol. The claim of the defendant is that plaintiff was employed from month to month, and that he was discharged at the end of the first month. After the season closed, plaintiff brought suit for breach of contract, claiming the right to recover the contract price, less what he had earned meanwhile. He had verdict and judgment. Thomas S. Jerome, for appellant. D. B. Hayes and R. I. Lawson, for appellee. GRANT, C. J. (after stating the above facts). 1. Defendant insists that the evidence shows no authority on the part of Capt. Klintworth to make the contract for the defendant. Plaintiff testified that Capt. Klintworth informed him that the engagement would be by the season, and not by the year; that on the 18th or 20th of April the captain informed him that his services would no longer be required after that month; that he saw Mr. Brush on the yacht about the 28th of April, and asked him why he was not going on the new boat which defendant had purchased, with the rest of the crew, to which defendant replied, "I suppose you are;" that he informed Mr. Brush that the captain had told him that his services would not be required after the 1st of the month; that defendant replied he would see him again about it; that he never signed a written contract; that a contract was sent to Capt. Klintworth for him to sign, providing for his employment by the season, and that he did not sign it. because it was not handed to him to sign. Plaintiff then rested. Defendant then moved the court to direct a verdict for him on the ground that plaintiff had shown no authority on the part of Capt. Klintworth to enter into the contract, and that plaintiff made no claim upon defendant |