Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

2. Evidence of authority of agent,
when? Trask v. Jones et al.,...62

AGENT.

1. When an agent or officer of a cor-
poration, in good faith, in the proper
discharge of his duty, applies his
own money or makes use of his own
chattels for the proper uses of the
corporation, he may recover for such
money or such use. Rider et al. v.
The Union India Rubber Co.,...85

2. Although an agent or officer can-
not, as such, make a contract with
himself, and so bind his principal to
himself, his principal is nevertheless
bound to pay for property used by
his agent, in the faithful discharge
of his duty, for purposes within his
authority, and the measure of com-
pensation is the fair value of the
property so used.

3. One who deals with or disposes of
the personal property of another
(the same not being negotiable pa-
per) must see to it that he acts by
the authority of some one who has
power sufficient to warrant such
dealing or disposition. Anderson et
al. v. Nicholas,
..121

[blocks in formation]

money due to his principal, and
having credited the principal with
the amount thereof may sue thereon
in his own name. Fish v. Jacob-
sohn,..
.514

7. Where the authority of an agent
was general in respect to a par-
ticular business, (the management
of a theatre,) carried on by the de-
fendant, and it appeared that, ac-
cording to the habit and course of
business, his agency embraced the
receipt and disbursement of the
moneys of the theatre, and the rais-
ing of money to carry it on when
required: Held, that the defendant
is liable for money paid by the re-
quest of such agent for the rent of
the theatre in which her business
was carried on, and for which she
was liable as lessee. Hearne, Adm'x,
v. Keene,

Vide CORPORATION, 2, 3, 5, 6.
EVIDENCE, 1, 2.

.579

MONEYED CORPORATION, 9, 10.
Pleadings, 1, 6, 7.

ALIMONY.

1. Although in the progress of an
action for a divorce alimony pen-
dente lite has been once fixed and
allowed to the plaintiff, the amount
may be altered and increased upon
its appearing that the necessities of
the plaintiff require it, and the
amount of the defendant's property
is such that the increased allow-
ance is reasonable. Forrest v. For-
rest,
..672

2. The amount reported to be rea-
sonable by the Referee, appointed
to settle the amount of permanent
alimony, is not to be taken as the
rule in determining the alimony to
be allowed pending the further liti-
gation, and while that report is itself
in course of being reviewed on ex-
ceptions.....
....id

3. In determining the allowance of
alimony, the amount of the principal
of the defendant's estate being stated
by himself, it is just to assume that
he makes that principal yield a rea-
sonable income unless he shows
some sufficient reason why he does
not and cannot..
.id

[blocks in formation]

under a written agreement signed
by the vendors and vendees, and
such agreement is, in form and
terms, that the vendors and ven-
dees "constitute and appoint B.
and W. to appraise" the property,
and "bind themselves each to the
other to abide by their valuation of
the same, at which" (the vendors)

agree to sell the same to" the
vendees, and the latter "agree to
buy the same" of the vendors; and
in case B. and W. "should be unable
to agree in their valuation, they
shall select a disinterested party, as
usual in such cases, to assist them in
the appraisement;" and where B.
and W., being unable to agree, se-
lected a third person, and the three
met together and examined the pro-
perty, and two of them agreed up-
on a valuation, the vendors are enti-
tled to recover the sum so agreed
upon, although such third person
was selected upon an agreement
between him and B. and W. that
he should fix the value and they
would concur in it, provided that
agreement was abandoned, and the
three did in fact meet and examine
the property together, with a view
to determine its fair value, and the
value so agreed upon was fixed in
good faith, and expressed the honest
judgment of the two who concurred
in respect to it. Haff v. Blossom
et al.,
..559

ARBITRATORS.

Vide APPRAISAL.

ASSIGNMENT.

1. An order drawn by one who has
furnished supplies to a vessel in-
dorsed upon one of her bills of la-
ding and drawn upon the master
requesting him to pay a sum named,
describing it as the freight on the
bill of lading, of which the within
is a copy, and accepted by the mas-
ter with the knowledge and assent

of the owners of the vessel, is a
sufficient equitable assignment of
the freight of the goods in such bill
of lading mentioned, and entitles
the assignees to recover that freight
from the shippers of the goods.
Trask v. Jones et al.,.... .....62

2. The drawing and delivery of a
bank check do not operate as an
assignment to the payee of the
funds in bank to the credit of the
drawer. Butterworth, Receiver, v.
Peck et al.,.
.341

Vide INSURANCE, 7.

ATTACHMENT.

1. Where goods are taken by the
sheriff under an attachment against
a debtor, and a third person brings
an action against the sheriff for
such taking, claiming the goods as
transferree of the debtor, the sheriff
may show as a defense that the
transfer by the debtor to the plain-
tiff was with intent to defraud
creditors, although the attaching
creditor has not recovered judg-
ment. Thayer v. Willet, Sheriff, 344

2. Where the owner of goods, resid-
ing in Ohio, consigned them to a
factor residing in New York city,
for sale, and such factor, on advice
of shipments of goods from time to
time, and on receipt of bills of
lading for such goods advanced to
the consignor, and on the 6th of
April, 1854, the consignee's advances
and charges exceeded in amount
the value of the consigned property
which had then come to hand, but
were less in amount than the value
of the whole consigned property,
(including the value of that for which
bills of lading had been received, but
which had not then arrived,) and all
of such consigned property arrived
by the 15th of June, 1854, and on
subsequent sales produced a surplus,
after paying all advances and
charges, an attachment against the

« PreviousContinue »