1  Burch  V.  Watts,  37  Tex.  135.  eSpence  v.  McGowau,  53  Tex.  30,

2  Cross  V.  McMackeu,  17  Mich.  511 ;  '  Hearn  v.  Ewin.  3  Cold.  399 ;  Wil-
Wliitney  v.  Brunette,  15  Wis.  61 ;  lard  v.  Fralick,  31  Mich.  431 ;  Robm-
Hawes  v.  Clement,  04  id.  153 ;  Sti'eiss-  sou  v.  Schmidt,  48  Tex.  13 ;  Bailey  v.
gutli  %■.  Reigelniau,  71  id.  213.  Biyan,  3  Jones'  L.  357 ;  Banks  v.  Dar-

3  Drew  V.  Dequindi-e,  2  Dougl.  den,  18  Ga.  318 ;  Scogins  v.  Perry,  46
(Mich.)  93 ;  Wilson  v.  xVrnold,  5  Mich.  Tex.  111.
98;  Fessenden  V.  Hill,  6  itL  242.    Com-  »  Rice  v.  Ku-kman,  3  Humph.  4ir).
pare  Graham  v.  Bradbury,  7  Mo.  281 ;  9  Kramer  v.  Holster,  55  I^Iiss.  243 :

Adams  v.  Lockwood.  30  Kan.  773;  Ricard  v.   Smith,   37    id.   644.      See

Foster  v.  Illinski,  3  111.  App.  345.  Bank  of  Monroe  v.  Widner,  11  Paige,

*  Van  Norman  v.  Circuit  Judge,  45  529 ;  Humphrey  v.  Chamberlain,  1 1

Mich.  204 ;  Mathews  v.  Densmore,  43  N.  Y,  274,

id.   461 ;    Morrison  v.   Fake,   1   Pin.  lo  Dyson  v.  West,  1  Har.  &  J.  567 ;

OVis.)  133 ;  Whitney  v.  Brunette,   15  McWhorter  v.  Donald,  39  Miss.  779 ;

Wis.  61.     But  see  Cole   v.  Aune,  40  Buford  v.  Bostick,  58  Tex.  63 ;  De-

Mhan.  80.  quasei  v,  Harris,  16  W,  Va,  345.
504  STKICT    CONSTRUCTION.
