RECENT CASES. 453 transactions after incorporation, if all the parties concerned knew that the law from which the corporation claimed its existence had been held null and void. The court, in reaching a contrary conclusion, were much influenced by the inconvenience of leaving a borough without a government. Criminal Law — Appeal — Abatement by Death. — Held, when one appeals from a criminal conviction and dies before the appeal is prosecuted, his personal representative cannot carry on the appeal, though there is a judgment for costs which binds the estate of the deceased. State v. Martin, 47 Pac. Rep. 196 (Ore.). At common faw, an appeal could be brought by the representative to reverse an attainder of treason or felony, in order to remove the corruption of blood and the for- feiture of estate, (Marsh's Case, i Leon. 325, and Williams v. Williams, Cro. Eliz. 557,) and as the latter are both abolished, the court consider that the common law reason for such appeals no longer exists. But a judgment for costs binding the estate seems, as far as it goes, to give the representative an exactly similar interest. The case, how- ever, is in accord, both in decision and reasoning, with O' Sullivan v. The People^ 144 III. 604, regarding the judgment for costs as a mere incident to the real question. Equity — Improvements Made under Mistake as to Title. — Defendant had improved land by building thereon, supposing he had acquired title to the land under foreclosure proceedings. In fact, the defendant had not acquired an indefeasible title, having failed, through ignorance of a later recorded mortgage, to make the second mortgagee a party to the foreclosure suit. Held, the second mortgagee was entitled to redeem only on condition of reimbursing the defendant the value of the betterments made before actual knowledge of the second mortgage was brought home to him. Ensign v. Batterson, 36 Atl. Rep. 51 (Conn.). This case is but an application of the maxim that he who seeks equity must do equity. Doing equity under these circumstances consists in paying the defendant the value of improvements made by him under a bona fide mistake as to title. Keener, Quisi Contracts, 377. It is interesting to note this case as one in which the constructive knowledge which one has of all recorded interests has not the same effect as actual notice of such interest. Equity — Setting aside a Voluntary Settlement. — Held, that a voluntary family settlement will be set aside, when it appears that the grantor did not intend it to be irrevocable ; but after the death of the settlor, the party seeking to set it aside must show himself entitled in equity to the benefit of the settlor's right. Richards v. Reeves^ 45 N. E. Rep. 624 (Ind.). See Notes. Equity — Subrogation. — Where land was sold to satisfy a valid lien for a drainage assessment, but the purchaser failed to get a good title, held, that the State's lien for the drainage assessment will be revived in equity for the benefit of the purchaser. Reed v. Kalfsbeck, 45 N. E. Rep. 476 (Ind.). An obligation satisfied at law will be revived in equity for the benefit of one who has extinguished the obligation at law in consequence of compulsion, or to protect a threatened business interest. Thus, a judgment creditor who purchases property sold to satisfy his judgment, but fails to get title, may revive the satisfied judgment in equity. McGhee v. Ellis, 4 Litt. 244. In many cases, a stranger purchasing at an execution sale under a valid judgment has been given the same aid in equity. This extension of the doctrine of subrogation meets with the approval of Mr. Freeman. Freeman on Executions, 2d ed., § 352. All the reasons urged for making this extension of the doctrine of subrogation are present in the principal case. Evidence — Direction of Verdict. — Held, reversible error for a court to direct a verdict for defendant, though the evidence so preponderated in its favor that, had the jury found for the plaintiff, the court would have set aside the verdict as against the weight of evidence. Luhrs v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 42 N. V. Supp. 606. The decision is unsatisfactory. It is generally said that the test of the right to direct a verdict is whether the court would be bound to set a verdict aside as against evidence if rendered against the party in whose favor it is directed. The court attempts, in the principal case, to restrict the meaning of the phrase " against evi- dence " to cases where the verdict is without evidence to support it. It is hard to see why it should not apply equally well to cases where reasonable men could not differ as to the preponderance of the evidence. As is said in North Penn. R. R. Co. v. Com- mercial Bank, 123 U. S. 727, " It would be an idle proceeding to submit the evidence to the jury, when they could justly find only in one way." Municipal Corporations— Illegal Actions of Public Officials — Rigtit OF Individual to Interfere. — Held, that a resident taxpayer and voter may obtain 60
