1. Where an assignment for the benefit of creditors conveyed to the assignee all the " goods, chattels, merchandise, &c., and property of every name and nature whatsoever," of the assignor; Held that these words were sufficient to include all the property of the assignor, wherever it might be, whether on land or at sea, and embraced saws ordered by the assignor to be manufactured for him in England, which were on their voyage to this country at the date of the assignment. Van Dine v. Willett,
2. And the assignee having elected to accept the goods, as was evidenced by his paying the duties, and the
1. In an action to compel the deter-
mination of claims to real property,
proof that the premises in question
were assessed to the plaintiff, as
owner, is admissible, as tending to
show a claim thereto on his part,
somewhat open and notorious, and
to give practical character to his
assertion of title. Hager v. Ha-
92
ger,
2. In such an action it is not errone-
ous to charge the jury that in case
they find the plaintiff has no title to
the premises, and they for that rea-
son find for the defendant, they may
proceed one step further, and de-
termine whether the defendant has
title to the whole, or to any and
what portion thereof.
3. Nor is it erroneous to charge that
the non-production of a deed (al-
leged to contain a material clause
fraudulently inserted) in the de-
1. No one can be estopped from refus-
ing to do an illegal act; but an
estoppel can only operate in favor
of a party injured, where there is
no provision of law forbidding the
party against whom the estoppel is
to operate from doing the act which
is sought to be carried out through
its operation. New York and New
Haven Rail Road Company v. Schuy-
ler,
534
2. The doctrine of estoppel is only
available to the party for whom it
was designed, and does not operate
in favor of a stranger to whom the
representation was not made.
the trustee from such liability; even
though he receives a smaller rate of
interest.
ib
4. But where money was deposited by
executors, in a trust company, under
the direction of a referee, and with
the consent of the counsel of the
opposite party, as to the place of de-
posit, to be applied to the payment
of any recovery in the action; it
was held that, in the absence of
any demand of the payment of the
money, the executors were not
chargeable with a higher rate of in-
terest than was received for the fund
while it was deposited in the trust
company.
ib
5. Upon a settlement of the accounts
of an administrator de bonis non,
with the will annexed, before the
surrogate, legatees should not be
charged with the sums decreed by
the surrogate to be paid to them,
respectively, upon the final settle-
ment of the accounts of superseded
executors, but only with the ad-
vances charged to them in the will,
and the money actually received by
them from the estate. Clapp v.
Meserole,
661
6. A decree of the surrogate, ascertain-
ing the amount of money in the
hands of executors for distribution,
and directing in what manner it
shall be distributed, is not a satis-
faction or extinguishment of the
claims of those to whom the money
is made payable, to the extent of
such amounts, respectively. ib
7. A provision in such a decree, direct-
ing the executor to pay over the
balance found to be in his hands, in
execution of the trusts of the will,
is not a payment, so as to discharge.
him; nor is it a payment, so as to
exonerate the fund distributable and
charge the person to whom it is
made payable.
9. Though the decree of the surrogate
gives to each distributee a remedy
be in the hands of the executor,
this is only cumulative, and will not
impair the remedy against the fund
itself.
ib
See ACTION, 16, 17.
WITNESS, 2.
The testimony of an expert is admissi-
ble to explain technical terms in a
contract; also to explain the mean-
ing of provisions used in a specifi-
cation for building steam engines.
Colwell v. Lawrence,
643
1. Where one makes a complaint be-
fore a police magistrate on a subject
matter over which the magistrate
has a general jurisdiction, and the
magistrate thereupon issues a war-
rant, upon which the party com-
plained of is arrested, the complain-
ant is not liable, in an action for
false imprisonment, although the
facts stated in the complaint do not
constitute a criminal offense, so as
to give the magistrate authority to
act in the particular case. Von
Latham v. Libby,
339
menced previous to the amendment
against the executor personally, for In an action for foreclosure, com-
his proportion of the fund found to
|