ant's officers. Mayor v. Sheffield, 4 Wall. 195; Kranz v. City of Baltimore, 64 Md. 498, 2 Atl. 208; Hitchins v. Mayor, etc., 68 Md. 112, 11 Atl. 826. The defendant does not insure its citizens against damage from works of its construction, and is only liable as other proprietors for negligence or willful misconduct. The principles upon which municipal corporations are held liable for damages occasioned by defects in streets and sewers and other public works are well settled by numerous cases in this court and elsewhere. Upon the conclusion of the testimony the defendant offered several prayers, one of which was "that there is no evidence in the cause legally sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover." This prayer was refused, and the defendant appealed from this and other rulings. The effect of the prayer is that of a demurrer to the evidence, and raised the question of the right of the plaintiff to recover, assuming all the evidence offered by him to be true. For the reasons which we have heretofore given, the prayer, in our opinion, ought to have been granted. And for the additional reasons the plaintiff relies upon two distinct causes as having produced the injury complained of; and, as McSherry, C. J., in Commissioners v. Wise, 75 Md. 40, 41, 23 Atl. 65, delivering the opinion of this court, says: "A case is thus presented when the injury complained of must have resulted from one or the other of two distinct causes, and not from both together, and when, if produced by the one, the defendants are not liable, though they are answerable if produced by the other. If the evidence adduced by the plaintiff does not show to which one of these two causes the damage is actually due, can a recovery be had? In cases like this the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant has been guilty of negligence, and that such negligence has occasioned the injury. If his evidence fails to establish either of these propositions, that burden has not been gratified." Upon either horn of his dilemma, the plaintiff has failed to establish a case entitling him to a recovery. This conclusion disposes of the case, and renders it unnecessary to pass upon the other questions discussed at the hearing in this court. It follows, then, from what we have said, that the judgment of the court below must be reversed. Judgment reversed, with costs.

MILLS et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. BAIZLEY, Defendant in Error. (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. March Term, 1895.) On error to the supreme court. Thomas B. Harned and John J. Crandall, for plaintiff in error. Edward Ambler Armstrong, for de fendant in error.

PER CURIAM. The judgment of the supreme court is affirmed, for the reasons given by that court.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, and GUMMERE, MAGIE, REED, VAN SYCKEL, and SIMS, JJ., for athrmance. DIXON, LIPPINCOTT, BOGERT, and BROWN, JJ., for reversal.

SCHAEFER et al., Appellants, v. DAWSON et al., Respondents. (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. March Term, 1895.) On appeal from a decree of the chancellor, whose opinion is reported in Dawson v. Schaefer, 52 N. J. Eq. 341, 30 Atl. 91. Irwin W. Schultz, for appellants. Sylvester C Smith, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Decree affirmed, for the reasons given by the chancellor.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, and GUMMERE, LIPPINCOTT, MAGIE, REED, VAN SYCKEL, BOGERT, BROWN, and KRUEGER. JJ., for affirmance. DIXON and SIMS, JJ., for reversal.

STARKEY et al., Appellants, v. FOX et al., Respondents. (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. March Term, 1895.) On appeal from a decree advised by Vice Chancellor Green, whose opinion is reported in Starkey v. Fox, 52 N. J. Eq. 758, 29 Atl. 211. Theodore Little, for appellants. Mahlon Pitney, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Decree unanimously affirmed, for the reasons given in the court of chancery.

SWIFT et al., Appellants, v. PIDCOCK, Respondent. (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. March Term, 1895.) On appeal from a decree advised by Vice Chancellor Van Fleet, whose opinion is reported in Pidcock v. Swift. 51 N. J. Eq. 405, 27 Atl. 470. Frederic W. Stevens and Richard V. Lindabury, for appellants. Louis Hood and J. Flavel McGee, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Decree unanimously affirmed, for the reasons given in the court of chancery.

TRENTON PASS. RY. CO., Plaintiff in Error, v. HAWK, Defendant in Error. (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. March Term, 1895.) On error to the supreme court. James Parker, for plaintiff in error. Edwin Robert Walker and Garrett D. W. Vroom, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. The judgment below is unanimously affirmed, for the reasons given by the supreme court.

VAN SYCKEL et al. v. WOOLVERTON et al. (Supreme Court of New Jersey. Feb. 20, 1896.) Action by Chester Van Syckel and others against Margaret Woolverton and others on a note. Plaintiff recovered a verdict, and defendant Margaret Woolverton applies for a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. Rule denied. Argued November term, 1895, before DEPUE, VAN SYCKEL, and GUMMERE, JJ. H. A. Fluck, for the rule. Chester Van Syckel, opposed.

PER CURIAM. This was a suit on a promissory note. The defense made by the contesting defendant was that she was a married woman, and that she signed the note for the accommodation of her husband. The question was for the jury to decide. It was fairly left to them by the court, and an examination of the case fails to disclose any ground for disturbing their verdict. Rule refused.

Abandonment.

As ground for divorce, see "Divorce."
Of right of way, see "Railroad Companies."

tal where it clearly appears by evidence within
the instrument itself.-In re Dahlem's Estate
(Pa.) 807; Appeal of Mercantile Trust Co., Id.

Acquiescence.

997.

The pendency of a suit in another state for the
same cause is no bar to an action in New Jersey.
-Fairchild 7. Fairchild (N. J. Err. & App.) 10.

An action to recover damages for larceny un-
der Pub. St. c. 204, does not abate on the death
of either party.-Aylsworth v. Curtis (R. I.)
1109.

An action to recover damages for larceny un-
der Pub. St. c. 204, § 22, is not penal, the object
being the indemnification of plaintiff.-Ayls-
worth v. Curtis (R. I.) 1109.

Consolidation of a railroad company which
had instituted condemnation proceedings held
not to abate the proceedings. - Day v. New
York, S. & W. R. Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 1081.

Action.

Actions";

See "Limitation of
"Practice in Civil Cases."

ministrators."

"Pleading";

Against administrator, see "Executors and Ad-
- city for negligence, see "Municipal Cor-
porations."

By wife against husband, see "Husband and

Wife.'

Effect of pendency of other action, see "Abate-
ment and Revival."

For infringement of trade-mark, see "Trade-
Marks and Trade-Names."

For injury to passenger, see "Carriers."
For negligence, see "Negligence."

For price of land, see "Vendor and Pur-
chaser."

On bills and notes, see "Negotiable Instru-
ments."

On bond of trustee, see "Trusts."

On contract, see "Contracts."

On foreign judgment, see "Judgment."
On guardian's bond, see "Guardian and Ward."
On policy, see "Insurance."

Particular actions, see "Action on the Case";
"Assumpsit"; "Attachment"; "Creditors'
Bill"; "Death by Wrongful Act"; "Deceit":
"Divorce"; "Ejectment": "Garnishment":
“Injunction": "Interpleader"; "Libel and
Slander"; "Malicious Prosecution": "Man-
damus"; "Partition"; "Quieting Title-Re-
moval of Cloud": "Specific Performance'
"Trespass"; "Trover and Conversion."
To avoid tax sale. see "Quieting Title-Remov-
al of Cloud."

To collect taxes, see "Taxation."
To contest will, see "Wills."

To enforce mechanic's lien, see "Mechanics'
Liens."

- subscription to stock, see "Corporations."
To foreclose mortgage, see "Mortgages."
To recover money paid by mistake, see "Pay-
To nullify marriage, see "Marriage."

ment.

To set aside fraudulent conveyance,
"Fraudulent Conveyances."

ACTION ON THE CASE.

see

Action on the case may be maintained for dam-
age done by pigeons-Taylor v. Granger (R. I.)
153.

Acts.

Under R. L. § 4049, a town succeeds to the
rights of the owner of sheep killed, and may
maintain a joint action against the owners of
two or more dogs killing them.-Fairchild v.
Rich (Vt.) 692.

Annexation.

Of territory to city, see "Municipal Corpora-
tions."

APPEAL.

See, also "Certiorari"; "New Trial.”
Costs on appeal, see "Costs."

In criminal cases, see "Criminal Law."
Appellate jurisdiction.

Purchaser of property at mortgage sale may
appeal from an order of the court setting aside
the sale.-Heider v. Bladen (Md.) 836.

Application of Const. art. 5, § 14, and Act
April 17, 1876, in regard to appeals in penal ac
tions from a magistrate or court not of record.-
Commonwealth v. McCann (Pa.) 299; Same г.
Courtney (Pa.) 300.

Executors empowered by will to sell land
may appeal from an order refusing to con-
firm the sale.-Warehime v. Graf (Md.) 364.

Where an order is made refusing to confirm
an executor's sale, others than executors hav
ing interest in the matter may appeal.-Ware-
hime v. Graf (Md.) 364.

Act April 18, 1874, applies only in clear cases
of error in law.-Security Savings & Loan Ass'n
v. Anderson (Pa.) 44.

Appealable judgments and orders.
An appeal will lie from an order directing a
partner to account for a certain contract as a
partnership asset.-Lafferty v. Lafferty (Pa.)
203.

The law court will determine exceptions to
part of a final decree in equity. - Emery v.
Bradley (Me.) 167.

An order refusing to dissolve an attachment is
not appealable.-Moss v. Mitchell (Pa.) 125.

arbitrators is not appealable.-Schultz v. Bear
An order refusing to strike off an appeal from
Creek Refining Co. (Pa.) 560.

No appeal lies from taxation of costs in favor
of garnishee. Welles v. Schroeder (Conn.)
1051..

An appeal does not lie from a decree dischar-
ging a rule to show cause why an attachment
should not be dissolved.-Lafferty v. Corcoran
(Pa.) 308.

Requisites.

Sufficiency of application for appeal to the com-
mon pleas from a judgment for a penalty.-Com-
monwealth v. Menjou (Pa.) 301.

Reasons of appeal predicated on an award of
costs to defendant held substantially defective.
-Hatch v. Thompson (Conn.) 770.

Though the court may allow an appeal from an
award, without payment of costs, as provided for
in Act June 16, 1836, § 27, the further require-
ment of section 28-entering into a recognizance
must be complied with.-Noyes v. Brooks (Pa.)

285.

The appeal must be taken to the next term
after its allowance.-Bristol Sav. Bank v. Gra-
ham (Conn.) 706; Farmington Sav. Bank v.
Hills. Id.

Under Gen. St. § 1129, when a term of the
supreme court intervenes between the date of
the judgment and the filing of the appeal, the
appeal cannot be taken to that term -Pitkin v.
New York & N. E. R. Co. (Conn.) 704.

An appeal from the admission of a will to pro-
bate, made nine years thereafter, was properly
dismissed. In re Nichols' Estate (Pa.) 566.