596 INDEX. UNITED STATES COMMIS8IONEI?. ? I?rma?,.?o? '. UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE. $? Rm?uer o? Ta?=. VACATION OF PATENTS. 3? Pm?c I,?m?, 2. VIRGINIA V. WEST VIRGINIA. $? S? 9,10. WAIVER. 8? B,t?r?am-r?, 6; Jmu?c?o?, D 9, 10; WAREHOUSEMEN. WATERS. P?L?C L?on?, 1; th'?.T?s, 2, ll. ' WILLS. 1. E?t on ?dldit? ol ? o! t?ator', t,? to ?. Inability to read doe? not create a presumption that & te?ator doez not know the eontents o?per declared by him to be his ? will and dul? executed as such. L/pphard v. Humphz?y, 264. 2. Pr?umpt/on that te?ato? ? contrnt? 0! There/s a prezumption that the teztator does know the contents of a will properly executed, which, wh/le not conclusive, m?t prevail in the absence of proof of fraud, undue influence or want of testamentary capacity, even where testator's inability to read is proved. In the absence of proof of want of testamentary capacity at the date of the will, declarations of the testator as to the contentz thereof are inadmi? ?ible to provo lack of knowledge of such contentz. /b. WORDS AND PHRASES. "Juri?liction" az generally used in compact? between States has � limited ?ense than" sovereignty." C?'al R. lt. Co. v. J?rsz?j City, 473. "Device" az used in acts ol March 2, 1889, and February 19, 1903, relat/ng to freight r?bate? (?ee Intemt?te Commerce, 1 ). Armour PaeA'ing Co. v. b'?/t?d $tat?, 56.
�
