criminal or penal laws of another; nor will they carry out or be guided by the laws of another, regulating the forms of actions, or the remedies provided for civil injuries. But it is equally well settled, that in the construction of contracts, and in ascertaining whether they are valid, the law of the country where the contract was made, or to be performed, shall in general, govern.
The lex loci only governs in ascertain ing whether a contract is valid, and what the words of the contract mean. When the question is settled, that the contract of the parties is legal, and what is the true interpretation of the language employed by the parties in framing it, the lex loci ceases its functions, and the lex fori steps in and determines the time, the mode, and the extent of the remedy. Sherinan v. Gassett, 304. Licenses, 547. License Laws.
Three distinct sales are necessary to constitute a common seller. Common- wealth v. Tubbs, 34.
License Law (of Connecticut.)
Where an information, on the statute entitled "an act regulating the sale of wines and spirituous liquors," averred, in the language of such statute, that the de- fendant, at a certain time and place, did keep a certain house, store, and shop, for the purpose of selling wine and spirituous liquor, to be drank thereat; it was held, that the words house, store, shop, being synonymous, said information was not bad for duplicity.
In such information, it is not neces- sary to state the time, when the offence is alleged to have been committed, in words at full length, but the same may be expressed in figures.
Although penal statutes are to receive a strict construction, they are also to be so construed as not to lead to an absurdi- ty, or defeat the manifest intention of the legislature. Rawson v. Connecticut, 113. Lien, 356.
Light, vessel in channel bound to show one, The Scioto, 16. Lenox v. Win- nisimmet Co. 80. Lost Instrument.
The evidence of the loss or destruction of a written instrument so as to lay a foundation for the introduction of second- ary evidence as to its contents, is a pre- liminary question addressed solely to the court. Fitch v. Bogue, 545.
Where a bill in equity was brought to obtain relief in regard to a negotiable pro- missory note, lost when over due, and not indorsed, and where an affidavit of the loss was annexed to the bill, but no in- demnity tendered, either before or after process, to the defendant, and where the claim was barred by the statute of limita-
tions, it was held, that the bill could be sustained, as there was no necessity of any indemnity. Whether the bill could not be as well sustained, though the claim were not barred by the statute of limita- tions. Quære?
Where the account given by the orator in a bill of equity of the loss of a note, is somewhat unsatisfactory, and where, at the same time, the defendants do not, in the first instance, move for an indemnity, and deposit the money subject to the or- der of the court, a court of equity will give costs to neither party.
Cases considered in which a court of equity will interfere in regard to lost in- struments. Hopkins v. Adams et al. 350. Lowell, Judge, Notice of, 425. Lunacy.
When a person apparently of sound mind, and not known to be otherwise, en- ters into a contract, which is fair and bo na fide and which is executed and com- pleted, and the property, the subject-mat- ter of the contract, cannot be restored, so as to put the parties in statu quo, such contract cannot afterwards be set aside either by the alleged lunatic or those who represent him; and therefore,
In an action by the personal represent- ative of a lunatic to recover from an as- surance society the price of two annuities on his life paid by the deceased to the society, a special verdict found, that the purchasing of the annuities were trans- actions in the ordinary course of the af- fairs of human life, and that the granting of the annuities were fair transactions and of good faith on the part of the soci ety, without any knowledge or notice on the part of the society of the unsoundness of the mind of the deceased: - Held, that the action could not be maintained. MI- ton v. Camroux, 357. Mandamus.
The U. S. Courts have no authority to cause a writ of mandamus to issue to the secretary of the treasury to cause a credit to be entered on the books of the depart ment, when there is no special law re- quiring such a credit to be entered. Nor have the Court authority to cause the amount of such credit to be paid where there has been no specific appropriation. Ex parte Reeside, 448.
had continued sole. Bloxom v. Bagwell,
Marsh, Charles, Obituary Notice of, 527. Mason, Jeremiah, Obituary Notice of, 334. Mesne Profits.
A claim for mesne profits is a cause of action, which, if recoverable at all, is one of common law, and not of equity juris- diction.
Such claim is in its nature local, and if by the law where it occurs it does not survive, it would seem could not be al- lowed against the estate of the recoveree in ejectment, in another jurisdiction where he had his domicil at the time of his de- cease, even if such cause of action did there survive.
If it could be allowed against such es- tate, it is of such a character, that it must be presented to the commissioners of in- solvency, or else it is barred.
All claims, of a merely legal character, are barred, if not presented. Burgess v. Gates, 317. Metcalf's Reports, Vol. XI. Notice of, 285. Miller, Trial of, 331. Minor, 151.
MISCELLANEOUS INTELLIGENCE.
Ohio Controversy, 37; Copyright, 42; Disqualification of Witnessess, 43; Com- mon-Carriers, 44; Attachments in U. S. Courts, 44; Curious Mistake, 45; Dama- ges for Railway Accidents, 45; Deeds made by Married Women, 87; Doctrine of Amendments, 91; Trial of Sarah Jane Pinkerton, 138; Resignation of Professor Greenleaf, 188; Appointment of Hon. Theophilus Parsons as Dane Professor, 188; Correspondence between Mr. Green- leaf and the Corporation of Harvard Col- lege, 189; Mr. Greenleaf appointed Emer- itus Professor, 190; Editor's Apology, 191; Slave Case at Detroit, 237; Wo- man's Rights Convention, 238; Judicial Appointments in Maryland and Massachu- setts, 239; Honorary Degrees, 239; State Trials in Ireland, 252; The Telegraph Suit, 284; Case of Pattee v. Greeley, 325; Trial of George Miller, 329; Pattee v. Greeley, 379; Sketch of Judge Lowell, 425; Judicial Changes in Maine, 429; Law in the Cherokee Nation, 431; The Alien case, 525; The Association of the Bar, 468; New York Code of Procedure, 472; A Squinting Jury, 476; Emigrant Tax, 477; Judgment before Argument, 479; Butler v. Butler, 480; Judicial Sala- ries, 480; New York Code of Procedure, 559.
able in Boston at intervals, with ten per cent. interest semi-annually, which notes were intended to be secured by the mort- gage sued on; and that, though the notes appear on their face to have been executed in Chicago, they were in fact executed in Boston. The mortgage was acknowl- edged and recorded in Cook county, on the day of its date: Held, that the forfeit- ure provided for in the usury laws of Mas- sachusetts being a part of the law of rem- edy, could not be enforced by the courts of this state.
To a scire facias to forclose a mortgage, a plea commencing as a plea of part pay- ment, and concluding by praying judg ment, was interposed, to which there was a general demurrer, which was sustained: Held, that payment in part, or in whole, might properly be pleaded, and that, in this case, if the plea had been specially de- murred to, it should have been held bad. Sherman v. Gassett, 304. Mortgage, 355.
Negligence in navigation, 80.
Rule of damages in cases of, 80. New Hampshire Reports, vol. XIII., no- tice of, 35.
NEW YORK CODE OF PROcedure, 97 Newspaper, 171. Notice of Protest, 495. Notary Public, 495.
NOTICES OF NEW Books.
Pennsylvania Law Journal, 35; New Hampshire Reports, 35; Hare & Wal- lace's Select Decisions, 36; Gresley's Equity Evidence, 85; Roper on Legacies, 86; Taylor's Evidence, 135; Hall's Re- port of Trial of William Freeman, 137; Selwyn's Nisi Prius, 186; Gordon's Di- gest, 186; American Law Journal, 187; Code Reporter, 187; Washburn's Reports, 232; Judge Edmonds's Address on the Constitution and Code of Procedure, 232; Hunt's Merchant's Magazine, 236; Met- calf's Reports, vol. xI., 285; Barbour's Reports, 286; Barbour's Chancery Re- ports, 287; Argument List of the Law Academy of Philadelphia, 287; English Chancery Reports, 287; Works Received, 287; Pea Patch Case, 374; Holcombe's Debtor and Creditor, 376; Smith's Com- mentaries, 377; Johnson's Cases, 378; Bingham on Infancy, 378; Greenleaf on Evidence, 379; Chilton's Digest of Pro- bate Law, 379. Wharton's Precedents of Indictments, 423; 2 Barbour's Reports, 423; Hilliard's Elements of Law, 424; United States Digest, 466; Sandford's Reports, 466; Arrest of Aaron Burr, 467; Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 524; Trial of Epes, 525. Williams on Executors, 557. Nuisance, 356.
Nuisance, circumstances under which firm, is useless, but the survivor may re-
Hon. J. Q. Adams, 46; Hon. Joshua Holyoke Ward, 141; Hon. Stevenson Ar- cher, 239; Hon. Abraham Shriver, 240; Hon. James H. Gholson, 288; Hon. Hen. ry St. George Tucker, 288; Hon. Jere- miah Mason, 334; Hon. Harrison Gray Otis, 335; Hon. Charles Marsh, 527. Omnibuses.
The business of carrying persons for hire from town to town, in stage coaches and omnibuses, is not so far a territorial occu- pation or employment, as will authorize the city government of Boston to require a license from the mayor and aldermen, before exercising that employment. A by-law, to that effect, is an unnecessary restraint upon the business of those carry- ing passengers for hire, and not binding upon inhabitants of other towns. monwealth v. Stodder, 547.
Where there are no articles of partner- ship, a partnership is determinable at the will of either partner.
A surviving partner holds the partner ship effects merely as a trustee for the payment of debts existing at the time of dissolution, while he is bound to distribute the balance equitably between himself and the representatives of the deceased part- ner. It is his duty at once to make sale of all the partnership property, at once, collect outstanding demands, pay all debts, and divide the balance.
A partnership formed for conducting a newspaper, is commercial in its character, and the law applicable to commercial or trading transactions determines the rights of the parties.
A surviving member of such a partner- ship is not entitled to the good will, sub- scription list, speculative value of a news- paper published by him and his deceased partner; but it is partnership property, which must be sold with the partnership effects.
A court of equity can order a sale of all the partnership property, when the sur- viving partner neglects to perform his law- ful duties. And if the surviving partner be guilty of such mismanagement as clear- ly proves him unfit to be entrusted with the partnership estate, a court of equity will appoint a receiver to collect the debts and dispose of the property. Holden's Admr's v. McMakin, 171.
An indorsement by a surviving partner, in the name of the firm, after the death of the other member, of a note payable to the
cover on the money counts. Fowle v. Harrington, 32.
Pattee v. Greeley, case of, 325, 379. Pea-Patch case, 374. Penal Statutes, 113.
Pennsylvania Law Journal, notice of, 35. Pinkerton, Sarah Jane, Trial of, 138. Power of congress to regulate commerce, 487; exclusive, ib. Practice.
A member of a firm cannot be sum- moned as a trustee in his individual ca- pacity, where he is only a member of the firm. Warren v. Gibbs and trustee, 116.
The discharge of one of several joint co-defendants, or the permitting his case to go first to the jury, in order that he may become a witness for the others, is a discretionary matter with the court, where there is any evidence tending to criminate such defendant.
A motion to quash an indictment is a matter within the discretion of the court, and only to be sustained in case the court should be satisfied that no finding of the jury upon such indictment could be sus-, tained.
Whether a demurrer to an indictment for a misdemeanor, in Massachusetts, in- volves the whole merits of the case, so that the defendant cannot plead over in case of a decision unfavorable to him,- quære. Commonwealth v. Eastman et al., 256.
A petition for the removal of a cause from the State to the United States courts, should be filed at the time of entering the appearance. Jordane. Prot. Ins. Co.,118.
Where, in the court below, a verdict is found for the defendant, and both plaintiff and defendant take exceptions to the rul ing of the court, and the exceptions are allowed on both sides, if the court sustain the exceptions of the plaintiff, and at the same time sustain those of defendant up on points that are fatal to the plaintiff's right to recover, the verdict must stand. Lex. & W. Camb. R. R. Co. v. Chan- dler, 249.
Course to be adopted when the ad dam- num in the writ is less than the verdict. Hall v. Boston, 82.
Practice, Time within which a motion may be made to dismiss a writ for al- teration after service, 79. Practice, points of, as to bill of particulars,
Preference of creditors, 355. Presumptions, 72. Procedure, N. Y. Code of, 472. Promissory Note, 32, 356.
A notarial protest set forth that the no- tary "went to the counting-house of T. W. C., upon whom the said bill is drawn, and speaking to a clerk, exhibited unto
him the said bill, and demanded accept-
ance thereof; whereunto he answered,
that the same could not be accepted.- Quack medicines, 130. Held, that the evidence of dishonor was sufficient if the clerk were proved to have been instructed by the drawee to refuse acceptance. Whether the clerk's author- ity could be inferred from any local usage, quære.
Where notice of protest, which might have been sent by a packet-ship from England to America, was kept back until the sailing of the next Cunard steamer, so that it did not reach this country as soon as it would have done if sent by the packet-ship, the court instructed the jury, that the notice was forwarded in due time, if they believed from the evidence that the Cunard line of steamers was the regularly established mail line between Great Britain and the United States, and was the regular and ordinary mode of communication, &c.," and that the notice was sent by the first steamer leaving after the protest.
It being the usage of London to leave a bill with the drawee for twenty-four hours, without regard to the posts, the holder of a bill, who receives it on the third of the month, in time to acknowl- edge its receipt by steamer of the fourth, is not bound to present it on the same day, though he might, by so doing, have forwarded notice of protest on the fourth. Bank of Va. v. Stainback, 495.
If the consideration of a note be fraud. ulent between the original parties, a sub- sequent holder will be held to strict proof that he paid value for it.
A promissory note or bill of exchange, which is made negotiable by the law of Pennsylvania, and is transferred to the holder as collateral security, merely for an antecedent debt or liability, without notice of fraud, will not confer such a title on the holder as will exclude all equities between the maker and the payee, or any previous holder. Prentice et al v. Zane, 204.
Where, upon the purchase of land, two promissory notes were given, and at the same time the payee of the notes, who was the owner of the land, executed a bond to the makers of the notes condition- ed to convey the land to them in one year, if the notes were first paid and a house erected upon the premises, and when the land in question was the day after the date of the notes conveyed by mistake to a third person, but had, before the com- mencement of the suit, been reconveyed to the original owner, in a suit upon the notes, it was held, that the conveyance of the land was no bar to the action.
Railroad conductors and passengers, Rights of, 461.
Railroad corporation.
Where, in the charter of a railroad cor- poration, it was provided that the capital stock should "not exceed two thousand shares, the number of which shall be de- termined from time to time by the direct- ors thereof," and where, subsequently, the directors of the corporation voted "to close the subscription books of the capi- tal stock," and no other vote was passed determining the number of shares; held, that this was a sufficient determination of the number of shares.
Where a subscriber to the capital stock of a railroad appeared at the meeting of the subscribers for the purpose of organi- zation, and took part therein, and voted for officers of the corporation, held, that it was sufficient proof of his assent to be a stockholder, and a ratification of his prior subscription.
Though the by-laws of a corporation require notice in certain cases to be given by mail, notice by a private messenger is sufficient, if in that way it reaches the party as soon as he would have received it by mail. Lex. & W. Camb. R. R. Co. v. Chandler, 249.
Railway accidents in France, Damages for, 45. Receiver, 171. Religious society.
A religious society may assess taxes, in any proper mode, the statute provide no particular mode.
Any person who takes a deed from any religious society is estopped from denying the right of the society to make the con- veyance, and from asserting that a change of the name of such society was a funda- mental change in its constitution.
A standing committee of a religious society may be authorized to assess its taxes. Nor is it necessary to assess such taxes every year. A subsequent misap- plication of the funds would not affect the validity of the taxes.
A religious society has no right to lay a tax without consent of the proprietors, but a condition may be inserted in the pew deeds, that the grantee shall pay such sums of money as may be assessed by a legal vote, which will, when such deed is accepted, amount to consent by such grantee. Mussey v. Bulfinch Street
The partial failure of the consideration of a note is not a sufficient defence. Society, 27. Wells v. Howard, 345.
Renunciation of Probate, 373.
When an act repeals "all laws in force at any time before its passage," it must be understood to refer to and embrace those laws that are of a general and pub- lic nature, and it does not include private laws passed for the relief or benefit of in- dividual citizens.
It seems that when an act repeals all
Select decisions of American Courts, by laws in force at a certain time, if one of Hare & Wallace, Notice of, 36. Selwyn's Nisi Prius, Notice of, 186. Sheriff, 355.
Shriver, Abraham, Obituary Notice of, 240.
Slave Case at Detroit, 237. Slavery,
The provincial act of 1740, § 34, which is still in force in South Carolina, denies to slaves the right to hold property in certain articles, and then provides that "it shall and may be lawful for any per- son or persons whatsoever to seize and take away from any slaves all such goods, commodities, boats, periaugers, canoes, horses, mares, neat cattle, sheep, or hogs, and deliver the same into the hands of his Majesty's justice of the peace, nearest the place where the seizure shall be made." This act does not justify a tres pass, nor does it authorize the party seiz- ing such property to enter land of another. Evidence of conversation with a magis- trate previously to attempting the seizure, held inadmissible. Richardson v. Brough. ton, 120.
Smith's Commentaries, Notice of, 377. Solicitor, 373.
Specific performance.
A specific performance of a personal contract will be enforced in equity where the party wants the thing in specie and cannot otherwise be compensated, where an award of damages would not put him in a situation as beneficial as if the agree- ment was specifically performed; or where compensation in damages would fall short of the redress to which he is en-
The rule being mutual if the party agreeing to sell an article would be bound to perform specifically, he can compel the other party to pay, notwith- standing that decree would be nothing more than a verdict of judgment at law. Phillips v. Burgher, 84.
those laws has been recognized and rati- fied by a subsequent act, the repealing act does not extend to it.
An act annulling, impairing, altering, or restricting the privileges granted by the charter of a private corporation, impairs the obligation of a contract, and is there- fore unconstitutional and void. Attorney General v. Williams, 535. Sunday.
A law prohibiting the sale of goods on Sunday is not a violation of the constitu- tion of South Carolina, which provides (Art. 8, § 1,) for "the full exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preju dice." City Council of Charlestown e Benjamin, 7.
An action cannot be maintained for a deceit practised in the exchange of horses on the Lord's day. Robeson v. French, 418.
Contracts made on Sunday are void, unless for works of necessity or charity. Comparison of statutes. Webster o. Ab- bott, 117.
A bond made upon the Lord's day is void. Pattee v. Greeley, 253.
Taylor on Evidence, notice of, 135. Taxes by religious societies, 27. Telegraph Suit, 284. Tenants in common, 355.
Assumpsit will not lie by one tenant in common against another, for rents and profits of the common estate. Mason e Mason, 119. Texas, 535.
THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR, 434, 468. THE POST-OFFICE MONOPOLY, 385. Trespass, 33, 374.
TRIAL OF DR. COOLIDGE, 1. Trial of Epes, notice of, 524. TRIAL OF JOHN MITCHELL, 193.
« PreviousContinue » |