[220] Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Union Trust Co., 112 U. S., 250. See also Dreier v. Continental L. I. Co., 24 Fed. Rep., 670; Adrereno v. Mutual Res. Fund L. I. Co., 34 Fed. Rep., 870.
[221] Logan v. United States, 144 U. S., 263; United States v. Reid, 12 How., 361.
[222] See references to the several statutes in note 2 on p. 94.
[223] See Freel v. Market St. Cable Ry. Co., 31 Pac. Rep., 730 (Supr. Ct. Cal.).
[224] This seems to be the proper construction of the Kansas and Oklahoma statutes, though what seem to be typographical errors in the published laws render it doubtful.
[225] For laws regulating practice in the several States and Territories, see infra, p. 137 et seq.
[226] Laws N. Y., Act 1893, c. 295.
[227] N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., s. 836, as amended Act 1893, c. 295. A similar exception was introduced by Act 1891, c. 381, and modified by Act 1892, c. 514.
[228] Supra, p. 94, note 1.
[229] Bishop, Written Laws, secs. 119, 155; Potter’s Dwarris, Statutes, p. 185; 1 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, “Construction,” p. 386.