« PreviousContinue »
be so abated and payment thereof not required.
Vide INDORSEMENT, 2.
PROMISSORY NOTES, 7.
1. A transfer of notes by an Insurance Company, to two persons as security for the benefit of themselves and others who lend money or notes to such company, is not void so that the makers of the notes so held as security can refuse payment on that ground. Holbrook v. Basset et al.,..
...147 Nelson et al. v. Wellington, .....178
1. Whether, under a statute which forbids a corporation to interpose the defense of usury, a transaction, otherwise void for usury, is not entirely valid ? and whether a third person can, for the purpose of affecting the title of the holder of a promissory note, allege and prove that he took it from a corporation and holds it under a usurious contract?
Quære. Scott et al. v. Johnson, .213 2. It seems, that, under the statute last mentioned, if a maker of a note has no defense thereto in the hands of the corporation, he cannot, when sued thereon by an indorsee, allege and prove usury between the corporation and such indorsee. The title of the indorsee, being good as against the corporation, is good as against the maker...
..id Vide INSURANCE COMPANY, 3.
Vide PRACTICE, title UNDERTAKING.
USAGE AND CUSTOM.
1. The operation and effect of a policy of reinsurance cannot be impaired, or the obligation to pay the full premium stipulated in it be affected, by proof that there is a usage and custom among all Insurance Companies in the city of New York by which the reinsuring Company abates a per centage from the gross amount of premiums stipulated and does not require the payment of the full amount. St. Nicholas Insurance Company v. Mercantile Mutual Insurance Company,......238
VENDOR AND VENDEE.
2. Nor would it operate to reduce the claim of the reinsuring Company to recover the full amount of premiums stipulated, if in addition to such proof of custom it were shown that prior to issuing the policy it was, in view of such custom, agreed by parol that fifteen per cent should
1. Where a person contracts to purchase goods, which, at the time, are on board of a vessel at sea, and expected to arrive, it is his duty to receive such goods within a reasonable time after notice of their arrival and a tender of the goods at the place designated by him for the delivery of them. Dibble et al. v. Corbett et al., ...
..202 3. Where such purchaser refuses to accept a delivery within a reasona
New York Mutual Insurance Company,
ble time, he is liable to the vendor for the damages necessarily caused by such delay...
..id 3. Although the contract be made in such form that the title to the property does not pass until the goods are delivered, yet the contract being valid and obligatory, and the purchaser having accepted the goods under it, it is no answer to the claim for damages for delaying an unreasonable time to receive them, that the title of the purchaser does not become vested until the goods are delivered and accepted. ... .id
2. A verdict against a railroad company will be set aside as contrary to evidence, where it appears by uncontradicted testimony that the act charged to be negligent was done according to the practice of the defendant and other companies for many years with safety, and was considered by those engaged in such business proper and discreet. Weldon v. Harlem Railroad Company,