The Birmingham age-herald., 1906-04-13

which is ''an act to amend an act to inc corporate the town of Geneva, in Gene va county" granting immunity from d prosecution by the state after convic- tion or acquittal by the mayor for violat- ing a town ordinance is unconstitutional, as not embraced in the title, when the original act to incorporate the town con- talned no similar provision.
 Bell vs. State, 115 Alabama ST, and ex parte Reynolds, S7 Alabama 13s. followed.
 Affirmed
 Opinion by Weakley, c. J., Tyson. Sinlp- son and Anderson. J. J., concurrng. C.. W. Zimmerman Manufacturing com pany vs. William H. Wilson, administra- tor, ct. al. appeal from Clarke chancery court.
 1. A life tenant of realty cannot impair the remainder nor commit or authorize the commission of waste.
 2. Upon the death of widow who had life interest in certain realty as homestead the property of the deceased husband, his administrator had the right to have the land sold for division among the husbands heirs, and the sale would carry the standing timber, notwthstand- ozing the life tenant had undertaken to sell the timber and had covenanted to defend the title threto.
 g. The covenantee of the widow paying for the timber had no sucn lien on the realty either in the widows hands or the hands of her children who divided it among themselves after her death and without administration. as would support a bill in equity against them to recover the money
 4. For the broken covenant the coven- antee had remedy at law against the widow in her life time against her administrator after her death, when ap pointed, upon due presentation of the claims: a claim for damages for breach of her covenant would not lie against her distributes.
 5. If it could be held the covenantee, as for a failure of consideration. could main- tain an action for money had and re- ceived against the widows distributes, who divided the price of the timber among themselves, this would not justify resort to equity.
 6. The complainant showing no right to decree against the children of the widow, had no right to seize or impound the proceeds of the sale of the lands claimed as heirs of the father, to satisfy a decree which could never ue obtained; and the injunction against payment to them of the proceeds of the sale for division was properly dissolved.
 :. An estoppal on the part O. me mother does not bind the heir when he claims from the father.
 Affirmed.
 Opinion by Weakley C. J.. Tyson, simp- son and Anderson, J. J., concurring. A. Sniff & Son vs. Sylvia Address, ap- peal from Monroe Chancery court.
 1. When there are two defendants and a joint appeal by both, a joint assign ment of errors will not be available to reverse unless the ruling is erroneous as to both appellants.
 Beachman vs. Aurora Manufacturing company 110 Alabama 555. and Kimbrell vs Rogers, 90 Alabama, 346, followed
 ?. When bill ayers possession of land at the filing thereof ana makes a case for the cancellation of a deed executed by an ignorant and illiterate woman nearly 80 years of age. without consider ation and without understanding the na ture and character of her act it contains equity and will not be dismissed on mo- ton.
 8. When a complainant who has ex- ecuted a deed to her land remained in possession thereof this would constitute notice to purchasers from her grantee of her equitable rights. growing out of the fraudulent procurement of the deed from her. and she would not be guilty of laches for not immediately filing her bill on discovering the fraud.
 4. In chancery. as at law. a defendant. to prevail upon plea, on which issue has been taken, must prove all it's aver ments.
 D. When the denials of an answer are to issue and literal only, the allegations of the bill are not trayersed.
 G. The court is satisfied with the chan cellor's conclusions on the facts
 Affirmed.s
 Opinion by Weakley c. J., Tyson. Simpson and Anderson, J. J., concurring.
 Supreme Court Decisions.
 Montgomery, April 2.-(Special.) )--In a case brought by George Morris against the Southern railway, in Colbert county. the supreme court has agreed with the lower court that the railroad or any rail- road, is obligated legally to keep all bridges and other approaches to it's prop erty in good repair and safe for those who have to use them. A relative of the complainant had a horse hurt by the bad condition of a bridge near the tracks