188 Herrick v. Malin, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 388; Waring v. Smyth, 2 Barb. Ch, (N. Y.) 133; Johnson v. Moore, 33 Kan. 90, 5 Pac. 406.
199 Hatch v. Hatch. 9 Mass. 307.
200 Herriek v. Malin, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 388; Holton v. Kemp, 81 Mo. 661; Van Horn v. Bell, 11 Iowa, 465.
201 Montag v. Linn, 23 111. 503.
202 School Committee v. Kesler, 67 N. C. 443; Kimball v. Eaton, 8 N. H. 391.
203 Jackson v. Hayner, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 469; Morrison v. Morrison, 27 Grat, (Va.) 190; Lyons v. Van Riper, 26 N. J. Eq. 337.
204 Davis v. Brandon, 1 How. (Miss.) 154; Grandin y. Hernandez, 29 Hon, 309; Le Franc v. Richmond, 5 Sawy. 603, Fed. Cas. No. 8,209. But see Moss t. Anderson, 7 Mo. 337.
205 l stim. Am. St. Law, §§ 421, 1564. Such statutes are not retroactive. Wisdom v. Reeves (Ala.) 18 South. 13.
206 Warren v. Lynch, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 239; Tasker v. Bartlett, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 359, 364; Bradford v. Randall, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 496.
207 Pierce v. Indscth, 106 U. S. 546, 1 Sup. Ct. 418; Pillow v. Roberts, 13 How. 473. But see Farmers' & Manufacturers' Bank v. Haight, 3 Hill (X. Y.) 493. The printed device "[L. S.]" has been held sufficient Williams v. Starr, 5 Wis. 534, 549.