APPEAL.

1. TO SUPREME COURT: PRACTICE: AFFIRMANCE OF JUDGMENT ON
MOTION. Under section 3515 of the Revision, which provides that
if the appellant fails to file the transcript which has been sent up,
the appellee may file the same, and on motion may have the appeal
dismissed or judgment affirmed, an appellee cannot have the
judgment affirmed where notices of appeal were not served on
the clerk and appellee until within fifteen days of the term, though
the supersedeas was filed that length of time before. Pratt v. The
Western Stage Co., 241.

2 REQUISITES OF AN APPEAL: EFFECT OF SUPERSEDEAS. An appeal
is not perfected until service of notice thereof. Merely filing a
supersedeas bond does not amount to the taking of an appeal; and
the execution of a judgment should not be stayed unless in addi-
tion to the filing and approval of the supersedeas, there is also
notice of appeal served, at least upon the clerk. Id.

3. If the supersedeas bond is filed, and no notice of appeal is served, at
least upon the clerk, he should not recall the execution, if one has
been issued, nor issue an order to stay proceedings thereunder. Id.
4. AFFIRMANCE OF JUDGMENT ON NOTICE TO CLERK. It seems, that,
under sections 3514, 3515 of the Revision, an appellee may, in
proper cases, have an affirmance by showing that the clerk has
been served in time with notice of appeal, without showing that
the party has also been served with such notice. Id.

5. TO SUPREME COURT: TIME. An appeal to the Supreme Court will
be held to have been taken in time, although the transcript shows
the judgment to have been rendered more than one year before
the notice of appeal was given, if it also appears from the trans-
cript, that at the term the judgment appears to have been rendered
a motion for a new trial was made by defendant, which was not
decided until some time after the close of that term, and within
one year before the notice of appeal, and that the judgment was
not, in fact, rendered until that time. Kendall v. Lucas County,
395.

6. EXCESSIVE JUDGMENT. A judgment of the District Court, claimed
to be excessive, will not be reviewed on appeal to the Supreme
Court until after a motion to correct the judgment has first been
made and overruled in the court below. Rev. 3545. Dickey v.
Harmon, 401.

7. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. So much of sec-
tion 2, chapter 49, Laws of 1866, as provides that it shall not be
necessary, where the parties waive a jury and the cause is tried to
the court, in order to secure to either party the right to have the
case reviewed on appeal, to file a motion for a new trial in
the District Court, is not in conflict with article 5, section 4 of the
State Constitution, which provides that the Supreme Court shall
have jurisdiction only in cases in chancery, and shall constitute a
court for the correction of errors at law, under such restrictions as
the General Assembly may prescribe. Coffin v. The City of
Davenport, 515.

ATTACHMENT.

1. DEMANDS EX-CONTRACTU. A claim for damages resulting from the
diseased condition of sheep represented to be sound, is a demand
founded upon contract, and the petition for an attachment in an
action founded thereon need not be presented to a judge for an
VOL. XXVI. — 77

allowance of the amount in value of property to be attached, as
prescribed in section 3177 of the Revision. Swan et al. v. Smith et
al., 87.

2. DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL SUING OUT: PLEADING. In an action for
damages for the wrongful suing out of an attachment, the plead-
ing must negative the truth of the matters alleged in the petition
for the attachment. Id.

3. MOTION TO DISCHARGE ATTACHED PROPERTY. In order to justify
the discharge of attached property under section 3239 of the
Revision, on the ground that it is exempt from the levy, the case
should be made clear and satisfactory. McLaren v. Hall et al., 297.
4. CAUSE CANNOT BE PUT IN ISSUE. The defendant in an attachment
proceeding cannot, in the main action, put in issue, as a defense,
the truth of the cause alleged for the attachment. Id.
See GARNISHMENT.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.

INTEREST ON COLLECTIONS. While an attorney may avoid all liability
for interest on money collected by him for his client by depositing
it in bank to his client's credit, or by keeping it on hand ready
for delivery, yet, if it be shown that the attorney used the money
as his own, he will be held liable for interest thereon during such
use. Mansfield v. Wilkerson, 482.

See PARTIES, 2.
PRACTICE, 14.

BAIL BOND.

FORFEITURE: VENUE. Where a defendant in a criminal prosecution
takes a change of venue to another county, and gives bail for his
appearance at the District Court of the latter county, which is for-
feited for want of appearance, the forfeiture belongs to the county
where, by the terms of the bond, the defendant was to appear,
rather than to the county where the indictment was found; and
suit on the undertaking should be brought in the county thus
entitled. Decatur County v. Maxwell, 398.

BILLS AND NOTES.

1. DAYS OF GRACE: NEW YORK STATUTE AS TO BANKERS. A person
claiming an exemption from liability on a bill of exchange upon
drawees in New York, by reason of the New York statute, passed
April 14, 1857, denying grace on all sight bills, and those appear-
ing on their face to have been drawn upon any bank, banking
association, or individual banker carrying on a banking business
under the act to authorize banking, must show affirmatively that
he comes within such exemption; and if it does not so appear
on the face of the bill, it will not be presumed. The Mt. Pleasant
Branch of the State Bank v. McLeran et al., 306.

2. DEMAND: WHO MAY MAKE. While a demand of payment should be
made by the owner of the paper, either personally or by his duly
authorized agent, this agency is sufficient if made by parol, and it
may be created by handing over the bill with instructions to
demand payment. Id.

3. DRAWEES MAY ACT AS AGENTS. The drawees in a bill of exchange
may act as the agents of the holder, in procuring a proper present-
ment and protest, in order to secure the holder's rights against
third parties to the paper. Id.

4. PRESENTMENT TO PARTNER. The presentment to one of the part-
ners, of a bill drawn upon the firm, is sufficient. Id.

5. GUARANTOR UNDER THE STATUTE. A guarantor under our statute
(Rev. § 1800) is chargeable without notice of non-payment, if the
holder show affirmatively that the guarantor has received no detri-
ment from the want of notice. Id.

6. CHECKS. It seems, that a draft drawn by one banker upon another
in a different State, having funds of the drawer on deposit, in favor
of a third person as payee, is to be regarded simply as a banker's
check, and not as a foreign bill of exchange. Roberts, Assignee, v.
Austin, Corbin & Co. et al., 315.

7. RIGHTS OF HOLDER: BANKRUPTCY OF DRAWER BEFORE ACCEPTANCE.
The holder of such a check may maintain an action thereon, before
acceptance, against the drawee thus having the funds of the drawer
in his hands, and wrongfully refusing to pay the same; and the
general assignment of the drawer for the benefit of his creditors,
after drawing the check but before the same is presented, will not
invest his assignee with the right to the money represented by the
check nor affect the rights of the payee thereto.

Argu. 1. PROMISE OF ONE TO PAY ANOTHER. In cases of simple contracts, if
one person makes a promise to another for the benefit of a third, the lat-
ter may maintain an action upon it.

Argu. 2. IMPLIED PROMISE. There is an implied promise on the part of the
bank receiving deposits to pay out the same upon the checks of the
depositor; and when the depositor indicates by his check the person to
whom the money shall be paid, such implied promise inures to the person
thus indicated. Id.

BRIDGES.

HIGHWAY: LIABILITY OF COUNTY. A county is liable for injuries result-
ing from the non-repair of a county bridge, to a person while travel-
ing the public highway. Kendall v. Lucas County, 395.
See HIGHWAY, 7, 8.

CASES IN IOWA REPORTS, CITED, FOLLOWED, ETC.
Abercrombie v. Redpath, 1 Iowa, 111. | Baker & Griffin v. Steamboat Milwaukie,
Vendor and Vendee. Van Driel v.
Rosierz, 577.

Arnold v. Grimes and Chapman, 2 Iowa,
3. Patent. Heirs of Klein v. Argen-
bright, 496.

Arnold v. Grimes, 2 Greene, 77. Patent.
Heirs of Klein v. Argenbright, 495.
Altex, Noyes & Co. v. Phelan & Ander-
son, 5 Iowa, 341. Contract. Sackett v.
Osborn, 146.

Bartruff v. Remey, 15 Iowa, 259. Consti-
tutional law. The State v. Squires, 357.
Barney v. Barney, 14 Iowa, 191. Divorce.
McEwen v. McEwen, 376.
Bartlett v. Dubuque & Sioux City R. R.
Co., 20 Iowa, 188. Railroad. Davis v.
Burlington & Missouri River R. R. Co.,

552.

Barrett v. Brooks, 21 Iowa, 144. Bridges.
Soper v. Henry County, 269.
Baker v. The Steamboat Milwaukee, 14
Iowa, 225. Instructions. Hunt v. The
Chicago & N. W. R. R. Co., 366.

14 Iowa, 214. Constitutional law. The
State v. Squires, 343.

Ballinger v. Tarbell, 16 Iowa, 491. Judg-
ment lien. Chapman v. Coats, 292.
Balcom v. Dubuque & Sioux City R. R.
Co., 21 Iowa, 102. Railroad. Davis v.
Burlington & Missouri River R. R. Co.,
552.

Beckwith et ux. v. Dargets, 18 Iowa, 303.
Parties. Turner v. The First National
Bank of Keokuk, 567.

Bell v. Evans, 10 Iowa, 353. Alimony.
Harshberger v. Harshberger, 506.
Bell v. Foutch, 21 Iowa, 119. Bridges.
Soper v. Henry County, 269.
Blake v. Blake, 7 Iowa, 46. Husband and
wife. McKee v. Reynolds, 590.
Blake v. Graves, 18 Iowa, 312. Evidence.
Murray v. Cone, 279.

Boardman v. Beckwith, 18 Iowa, 292.
Constitutional law. The State v.
Squires, 348.

Bondurant v. Crawford, 22 Iowa, 40. In-