« PreviousContinue »
Jid in this case, the defendant his act an irregular or an anomalous indorsement. In known when it placed ite Dane a lew of the States, as well as in England, he prima e pote in spit, while in the backed facie încurs tbe liability of an indorser, but parol evi. in indorsement bs bim could be
dence is admissible of the intention of the parties
bich, when ascertained, determines his liability. 4 than to complete its execution. ...
Lawson's Rights & Remedies, p. 2735, citing Coulter v. not thereby become a regalar
Richmond, 59 N. Y. 478; Jaffray v. Brown, 74 N. Y. paper, and that the defendaa: in
3:; Browning v. Merritt, 61 Ind. 425; Cady v. Shepfle owner of the note, por bad 07
ard, 12 Wis. 639; Eibert v. Finkbeimer, 68 Pa. St. 243; in it, and therefore could on Meyer y. Hibsher, 47 N. Y. 279; Myrick v. Hasey, 27 ecome a regular indorser, but there Me, 9; Jones y, Goodwin, 39 Cal. 493; Hooks v. Anderits signature on the note mai in 800, 58 Ala. 238; Dubois V. Mason, 127 Mass. 37;
Keyser v. Hall, 85 IN. 511; Smith v. Long, 40 Mich. and enable Cos to negotiate it het
355. But by the weight of authority he is liable as a Speaking of irregular indorsement
joint promisor or comaker if he indorses the note be. Jeter, and of the understanding para
fore it was issued, and it is so presumed; but if shown the court, in Douglass T. Mad
to have indorsed it after its issue, he is liable as a "In this country the parties to it
guarantor; but in both cases evidence is admissible of
the real intention of the parties, which, when ascer. fion of paper hare usually undera
tained, determines his liability. Union Bank v. Wil. on to be that of principal and on
lis, 8 Met. 504; Good v. Martin, 95 U. S. 90; Carpenter this understanding, have general
v. McLaughlin, 12 R. I. 270; Stein v. Passmore, 25 in creating the paper and add a
Ninn. 256; Herbage v. McEntee, 40 Mich. 337; Chafee Kies upon it." And in Rand.
. R. R. Co., 64 Mo. 193; Sylvester v. Donner, 20 Vt. bat anthor says: "That in 1:
355; Harris F. Brooks, 21 Pick. 195; Martin v. Boyd, 11 of instances the purpose of all 12:
1. H. 385; Stagg y. Limenfelser, 59 Mo. 342; Houghton 5. Els, 26 Wis. 181; Wright v. Remington, 41 N. J. L. 48; Irvine v. Adams, 48 Wis. 468; Kealing v. Van. sickle, 74 Ind. 529; Benton v. Hansford, 10 W. Va. 470; Rothschild v. Grix, 31 Mich. 150; National Pemberton Bank v. Longee, 108 Mass. 371. Some courts, however, bold evidence inadmissible to vary the contract thus implied by law. Allen v. Brown, 124 Mass. 77; Stack v. Beach, 74 Ind. 571. A few courts have held that the quasi-indorser prima facie incurs the liability of a guarantor (Castle v. Rickly, 44 Ohio St. 490; Ellis v. Clark, 110 Mass. 392; Riggs v. Waldo, 2 Cal. 485; Carroll v, Weed, 13 III. 682; Boynton v. Pierce, 79 III. 145; Stowell v. Raywood, 83 III. 120; Gillespie v. Wheeler, 46 Conn. 410; Ford v. Henderson, 34 Cal. 673; Great.
head v. Walton, 40 Conn. 226; Forsyth v. Day, 46 Me. yment to the plaintiff. It is DUO
3176), wbile others hold that the law implies no contract
whatever from such an indorsement. Chaddock v. Fanness, 35 N. J. L. 517; Crozer v. Chambers, 20 N. J. I. 256. One who puts his name on the back of a Dote payable to the order of another, on the condition that he is only to be liable as second indorser, cannot be beld by the payee as joint maker if the payee subsequently indorses it above his name. Grensel v.
10 such irregular indorsements ra?
to the actual or nominal para
a second indorser, is mapifest friends
is the defendant in error has one be maturity of the note, and the make the demand and give the st 10 charge the company is an index as aware that, if its liability org. bf an indorser only, that listen
and it was under no obligatios i
payee, unless before delivery of the note he knows o such understanding. Long v. Campbell, 17 S. E. Rep. 197, 37 W. Va. 665. A person, not an original party to a note, signing on the back thereof, be. comes a guarantor, rather than a joint maker. Burn. ham v. Gosnell, 47 Mo. App. 637. A person other than a payee, who signs his name in blank upon the back of a promissory note at the time of its execution, and before its delivery to the payee, is, as to a subse. quent bona fide holder for value, liable thereon as a joint maker, and not an accommodation indorser. Salisbury v. First Nat. Bank, 57 N. W. Rep. 727, 37 Neb. 872. Where one signs his name on the back of a note before delivery, for the purpose of giving it credit, he cannot show by parol that his agreement was that of indorser, and not of maker, though he was indorser of a prior note, for which this note was substituted. Dennis v. Jackson (Mion.), 59 N. W. Rep. 198. Where one not named 'as payee puts his name on the back of a note before delivery, he is liable as an original promisor, where credit is given on the faith thereof. McCallum v. Driggs (Fla.), 17 South. Rep. 407. Ap indorser of a note before deliv. ery is liable to the holder thereof as a joint maker. Provident Savings Life Assur. Soc. v. Edmonds (Tenn.), 31 S. W. Rep. 168. Where a person, not the payee of the note, indorses it in blank before delivery by the maker, he is liable as surety. Barton v. American Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. Rep. 210. Persons who, before delivery, sign on the back of a note, the interest for which is payable in advance, the following agreement: “Waiving demand and notice, we hereby indorse and guaranty the full payment of the within note; future pay. ments of principal or of interest in renewal thereof not releasing us as indorsers,"-are joint makers of the note. Jackson Bank v. Irons (R. I.), 30 Atl. Rep. 420. Where a person, not the payee of the note, indorse his name in blank, parol evidence is admissible to show whether he signed as a surety or an indorser. Barton v. American Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. Rep. 210. One, not the payee, who indorses a note before it is uttered, or indorsed by the payee, is a joint maker. Gumz v. Giegling, (Mich.), 66 N. W. Rep. 48. One who signs his name on the back of a note payable to the maker's order and by him indorsed in blank, and does so for the purpose of aiding the maker in negotiating the note, is liable as indorser, not as guarantor. Chicago Trust & Savings Bank v. Nordgren, 42 N. E. Rep. 148, 157 Ill. 663. One who writes his name on the back of a note at the time it is made is liable as a guarantor, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary. Varley v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co., 60 Ill. App. 565.
that the check was given the man
it to be, both on principle aedia
has not been reached witbets
Hubbard, 51 Mich. 95. Recent Cases on the Subject.-Gen. St. Conn. sec. 1960, provides that "the blank indorsement of a pegotiable or non-negotiable note, by a person who is neither its maker nor its payee, before or after its in: dorsement by the payee, sball import the contract of 81 ordinary indorsement
as between such Indorser and the payee or subsequent holders.” Held that, where such an indorsement is made in the pres eace of the maker and payee before delivery, and there is no conversation in relation thereto, and no evidence of an agreement different from that implied by law, parol evidence cannot be admitted to vary or eaplain it. Spencer v. Allerton, 22 Ati. Rep. 778, 60 Conn. 410. The doctrine that when a person not a party to a note puts his name upon it before delivery pot apply to a note payable to the maker, and in
Fration of the cases which buruk
have found ourselves unable to pldings, reluctant as we are not
Jirts by which they were decir
as it is that there should be copon so important a question
be thereby makes himself an original promisor does Horred before indorsement or vegotiation by the maker, First Nat. Bank v. Payne (Mo. Sup.), 20 S. W. Rep, 41. No understanding between parties mak. Ing and indorsing a pote, that those indorsing it shall bellable only as guarantors, will avail against the
INJUNCTION AGAINST CRIME-DEBS CASE. To the Editor of the Central Law Journal:
In your issue of Feb. 19 you publish a decision of the Court of Appeals of Texas holding that the State can. not maintain a bill to enjoin, as a common nuisance, the maintenance of a gaming house. In that case the court distinctly rules that, in order to such relief, the State must prove an injury to the property or civil rights of the public at large. In your annotation you remark that in this decision the court followed the Debs Case. It did to the extent of holding, what no well read lawyer ever doubted, that the jurisdiction of chancery to enjoin is not ousted because that sought
-It is generally held that spera
bill or note payable to order st SE t the paree or bolder, is not
He is generally called a pie**
T. Bep. 1131.
rzt u the complansborg WEEKLY DIGEST
CHOTIRII to he enjoined is criminal. But in the Debs Case the
mated from the operation
16. COSTI: Supreme Court of the United States, adopting almost
24 thus tilsed goes to OI ALL the Carrent Opinions of ALL the State
er facts stated in tbe comliterally the argument of the attorney-general, held
Power.-IL! o the question of satt
city is that that chancery, at the suit of the sovereign to enjoin,
and Territorial Courts of Last Resort, and of
2.II TÍPET of the error.-GCY cil dors a might take cognizance of the property rights of the the Supreme, Circuit and District Courts of the
power.--14: citizen-in this, that case was an advance upon all United States, except those that are Published
15 of saretlee-Waste.- 17. Co:11 former adjudication. On that point it is not followed
halost waste on certain Sailoret', in the case referred to; nor, so far as the writer is in Fall or Commented upon in our Notes of
and for waste on other land, deserting i aware, bas it been by the decision of any court of
Recent Decisions, and except those Opinions in
5's Badescription.DEN V. them on !! last resort in any of the States. S. S. GREGORY. which no Important Legal Principles are Dis.
clal power' Chicago, Ill. cussed of Interest to the Profession at Large.
M BUTFIT OP CERDITOR-Palidity. $1,2, 431.
amorte, in a deed of uss nadeat, It, by Bern
..2, 61 is pitated by a fartber refer BOBERIKOS ALABAMA........
.8, 70 Hrdar description, to secbedale 15. (OXTRA ARKANSAS..........
...7, 103 CALIFORNIA..
description of such propBOOKS RECEIVED.
...109 COLORADO ...........
anr. 00. V. WOOD, Ark., ....5, 44, 52, 65, 77
talo detise ILLINOIS.. INDIANA....... ........6, 12, 13, 50, 53, 62. 83, 110, 113
first party a IOWA.............
.9, 15, 63, 79, 98, 108
- Sztendion - Judgment.-Coder the wiil, on Handbook of the Law of Partnership. By William
..18, 23, 34, 48, 55, 80, 87, 92
La intervention D attach tbe amount ! George, of the St. Paul Bar. St. Paul, Minn.: MAINE..
Tre shall be D & 80 mmary
omitted trains West Publishing Co. 1897.
*** its found that the petitioner MASSACHUSETTS
....1, 85, 81, 88 The Law of Receiverships as Established and Applied MICHIGAN..
selej interest in such property,
ADXX. F. M.
ar nder as may be necessary to in the United States, Great Britain and her
2-4ecart can only pasa o to in Colonies. With Procedure and Forms. By John MONTANA..
contract NEBRASKA.... ..4, 10, 11, 19, 29, 49, 69, 72, 105, 106, 107
arts, and cannot render a
24 W. Smith, Esq., of the Chicago Bar. Chicago:
sale of the NEW JERSEY..
1-TALLET BANK OF CLALawyers' Co-operative Publishing Co. Rochester, NEW MEXICO..
does not ret N. Y. 1897.
NEW YORK.... ........
.20, 41, 56, 59, 84
public policy OHIO...
nielegal title of commer
.43 Handbook of the Law of Private Corporations. By
chon" passes to the in. PENNSYLVANIA.........
.90 Wm. L. Clark, Jr. Instructor in Law in the RHODE ISLAND.
the sale of SOUTH CAROLINA...... Catholic University of America, and Author of
ity of the pati
.22,93 Hornbooks on "Criminal Law," "Criminal ProUNITED STATES C. C....
..17, 42, 64 cedure," and "Contracts." St. Paul, Minn. West UNITED STATES S. C.....
.25, 89, 75, 82
-51, 91, 111 WISCONSIN..
ground of w The Historical Development of Code Pleading in
MAN, S. I,
, ΝΥ, 43 England and America, with Special Reference to 1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT-Impeaching Mortgage Fore
21. CORPORA the Codes of New York, Missouri, California, closure. -A certificate of acknowledgment in proper
ing acceptet. Kentucky, Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, Ohio, form can be impeached only by clear and convincing
any atteo.pt Oregon, Washington, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Kan. proof that it is false and fraudulent.-SAGINAW BUILD
by its general sas, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, ING & LOAN ASSN. V. TENNANT, Mich., 69 N. W. Rep.
to by tbe oko 1118. Montana, Arizona, North Carolina, South Caro
2. ACTION Joinder of Causes-Jolat Trespase.lina, Arkansas, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Con.
Several persons guilty of a joint trespass may be sued necticut, and Oklahoma. By Charles M. Hepburn, of the Cincinnati Bar. Cincinnati: W. H.
severally, or jointly in one action.-HENRY V. CARLE
TON, Ala., 21 South. Rep. 225. Anderson & Co. 1897.
3. ADMINISTRATOR – Right to Maintain Action.-An Commentaries on the Laws of England. In Four administrator cannot sue to set aside a sheriff's sale Books. By Sir William Blackstone Knight, one
under foreclosure, on the ground of fraud in the sale. of the Justices of his Majesty's Court of Jommon -THORP V. MILLER, Mo., 38 8. W. Rep. 929,
Merty of the lodge should Pleas, With Notes Selected from the Editions of
4. ADVERSE POSSESSION.-One who has been in the Archbold, Christian, Coleridge, Chitty, Stewart,
open, notorious, exclusive, adverse possession of Kerr, and Others; and in Addition, Notes and
real property for 10 years becomes vested with a valid
title to the same.-OITY OF FLORENCE V. WHITE, Neb., References to all Text Books and Decisions
70 N. W. Rep. 50. Wherein the Commentaries Have Been Cited,
293-000n Sote bs Indorsee.- Rp. 95.5. and all Statutes Modifying the Text. By Will
5. ALIEN8-Ability to Hold Land.-The alien law prohibits aliens from taking lands by devise or otherwise,
* were production by the iam Draper Lewis, Ph. D. Dean of the Departexcept that heirs who had acquired title might hold
Temp. à presumption of law ment of Law of the University of Pennsylvania.
and sell the land within three years. Section 8 proBook 3. Philadelphia: Rees, Welsh & Company. vides that a resident alien, who has declared bis in.
maturity, and for Talue; 1897.
tention to become a citizen, may take and hold real A Treatise on the Law of Railroads, Containing &
estate, and during six years dispose of it as a citizen,
provided he records a certified copy of his declaration Consideration of the Organization, Status and in the recorder's omce. In 1891 a proviso was added to
RS - Segligence - Proxl. Powers of Railroail Corporations, and of the
section 3, that, where a deed to land is made to ad Rights and Liabilities Incident to the Location, alier
he may convey to a citizen a good title, if the
****, Djured by defendant's
A station, be was vio Construction and Operation of Railroads, and
deed is executed before proceedings by the State also the Duties, Rights and Liabilities of Railroad seize the land; and any deed heretofore made" by any
an enddeniy and defend. Companies as Carriers under the Rules of the
shall have the same force against land 90 conveyed to an alien as if it had been made to a citizen;
Pas Degligent; rendering Common Law and the Interstate Commerce Act.
hemaning train, the only issue Held, that such proviso only applies to the class of By Byron K. Elliott and William F. Elliott, Au. aliens in section 3 of the act of 1887.-DE GBAFF Y.
uite cause erroneous, 88 thors of Roads and Streets, Appellate Procedure WENT, II., 45 N. E. Rep. 1075.
... Rr. Co. T. ROWLAND, and General Practice. In Four Volumes. In
6. APPEAL-Waiver of Errors.- Where an order sus dianapolis and Kansas City, The Bowen-Mer. taining a demurrer to the complaint, in that the action
3-11 18 not 4 mingling of rill Company, 1897. is barred by the statute of limitations, is assigned 18
the end of a trench where * DETSOD are stored, sep.
Podle him to demand and ed.
The owner of paper 80
U 1. UNITED @TATES SAT.
sbility.- A petition of 9
on a sniticient considera.
og liabilities remaining un.
tation of a beneicial associa. -Resolution of a subordinate Il be turned over to the owthdrawal from the or
and signed us liability test contracts be WESTERS, ET QCERQUE, S.
22. CORPORA tbe statute of viding that is continue to prosecuting the expiration defunct, and lution, abates MENT CO. V. H
and the rest association, was void, as
ou lodge, NO. 6, K. of P. F. Pa isolass, Ind., 48. E. Rep.
da negotiable promissory
** Sendant to show that plaint
1.-- Fikst SAT. BANK OF
23. CORPORA tions.
8.- A deri quired to be is an obligat. within the in on such obiga WISCHESIER LIFFE'S ADOR
alleged that, while alight
Dones were due to his Deg
24. CORPOR ors.-A mort. an insolvents due a director pression of the MILLER, X.J.
25. CORPORA contract tre has ceased to its directors, and otter through a re debts.-NON
WEEKLY DIGEST error on the ground that the complaint shows
that the action is excepted from the operation L tbe Current Opinions of ALLE
of the statute, the question thus raised goes to
the sufficiency of the facts stated in the com. Territorial Courts of Last Reser, un plaint and a tallure to discuss the question of suffSupreme, Clrealt and Distriet Contes eleney will be considered a waiver of the error.-GUY
F. BLUE, Iud., 45 X. E. Rep. 1052. jed States, except those that are Pro
1. APPEAL BOND Llability of Suretles-Waste.all or Commented upon in our bir Sureties la an appeal bond against waste on certain pat Decisions, and except those Updates
described land cannot be held for waste on other land,
on parol evidence of a misdescription.-OGDEN V. pk no Important Legal Prluelplen web
Davis, Cal., 47 Pac. Rep. 772. Jed of Interest to the Profession at Log 8. ASSIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT OFCREDITORS-Validity.
- description of property, in a deed of assignment,
snflicient in itself, is not vitiated by a further referMA..***********************
ence, for a more particular description, to a schedule SAS...********************** RXIA, *********
andexed, which contains no description of such prop. ADO.........****...****
erty.-MANSUR & TIBBETS IMP. Co. v. WOOD, Ark., 38 IS. **********
8. W. Rep. 898. A..******************
9. ATTACHMENT Intervention -- Judgment.--Under Code, $ 3016, providing that on intervention in attach.
ment "the petitioner's claim shall be in a summary AND.........*********
manner investigated. If It is found that the petitioner CHUSETTS --**********
has title to a lien on or any interest in such property, JAN..................2 BOTA............................18, 8, 2,70
the court shall make gnch order as may be necessary to RI......********
protect its rights,"-the court can only pass on an inINA.....*********
tervener's claim to the property, and cannot render a SKA.............1,10, 11, 19, 29, 49, 68, 72,60
money Judgment against him.-VALLEY BANK OF CLARSEY.......................
AINDA P. WOLF, Iowa, 69 N. W. Rep. 1131.
19. BANKS-Collections. The legal title of commer. .......................................,
cial paper Indorsed for collection” passes to the in.
dorsee only so far as to enable him to demand and en. ILVANIA........."
force payment thereon. The owner of paper so ISLAND......... CAROLINA...........
Indorsed may control the same until paid in full, and may intercept the proceeds thereof in the hands of an Intermediate agent.-BRANCH V. UNITED STATES NAT. BANK OP OMAHA, Neb., 70 N. W. Rep. 34.
11. BASK8-Successors-Liability.-A petition of a creditor of a banking association, which discloses that another bank, as successor of said association, bad assumed the liabilities upon a sufficient considera. tion, moving from said association, and that the claim of plaintiff was one of said liabilities remaining un. pald, states suficient facts to entitle to relief, as against the bank which assumed the aforesaid liabili. ties.-TECUMSEH NAT. BANK V. BEST, Neb., 70 N. W. Rep. 41.
12. BENEVOLENT SOCIETY-Dissolution-Subordinate Lodge.-Where the constitution of a beneficial association provided that on the dissolution of a subordinate lodge its property, etc., should be turned over to the grand lodge, a resolution of withdrawal from the or. der, providing that the property of the lodge should be turned over to a different association, was void, as being ultra vires.-KOERNER LODGE, NO. 6, K. of P. v. GRAND LODGE K. OF P. OF INDIANA, Ind., 45 N. E. Rep. 1108.
.....14, 28, 33, 40, 67, 6, 5,48 STATES C. O............ STATES 6. C.......... GTON.....................45, 78,9, , SIN
KNOWLEDGMENT-Impeaching Mortgsal --A certificate of acknowledgment in in be impeached only by clear and courte at it is false and fraudulent.-SAGOSTS LOAN ASSN. V. TENNANT, Mieb., 1.1
ION – Joinder of Causes-Joint Tree
V. MILLER, Mo., 38 S. W. Rep.a.
pat a resident alien, who has detened
pat beirs who had acquired title and the land within three years. Sential Ito become a citizen, may take a/b/ od during six years dispose of the Ji be records a certified copy of blades corder's office. In 1891 a propiso TL
may convey to a citizen a good the Jxecuted before proceedings is the
land, and any deed Wheretofore est in shall have the same force at li to an alien as if it had been iden pt such proviso duly applies to the
section 3 of the act of 18-DEM
TETT, Ind., 1 S. E. Rep.
26. CORPORATIONS - Subscriptions - Organization.Where subscribers representing 50 per cent. of the capital stock of a proposed corporation unite in call. ing and holding the first meeting for organization, the fact that other subscribers were not notified of the meeting does not afford grounds for those present and participating to object to the validity of the organiza. tion.-NICKUM V. BURCKHARDT, Oreg., 47 Pac. Rep. 788.
27. CRIMINAL EVIDENCE-Homicide-Reputation.-On a trial for murder, a witness who has testified that de. fendant is a peaceable citizen, and in good order as such, may be asked on cross-examination if defendant is pot known to habitually manufacture and sell whisky in open violation of law.-STATE V. DILL, S. Car., 26 S. E. Rep. 567.
28. CRIMINAL EVIDENCE – Rape.-Witness who tes. tities to the age of the prosecutrix may testify to va. rious collateral circumstances which impressed the date of her birth on his mind.-RICE V. STATE, Tex., 38 S. W. Rep. 803.
29. CRIMINAL LAW-Burglary.-That the act be com. mitted in the nighttime is an essential element of the crime of burglary.-IN RE MCVEY, Neb., 70 N. W. Rep. 51.
30. CRIMINAL LAW-Forgery-Variance.- Under Rev. St. 1889, § 4114, declaring that variance in names shall not be deemed fatal unless it is material and prejudicial to defendant, it is admissible, on a trial for ut. tering a forged note purporting to be signed by "J. Nugumry," to show that defendant agreed to have J. H. Montgomery sign the note, and represented the signature on the note as his.-STATE V. HARL, Mo., 38 8. W. Rep. 919.
31. CRIMINAL LAW-Pure Food Law Adulteration.A sale of beer as food, containing salicylic acid in any quantity, without a label on the package, notifying the purchaser that it contains such an ingredient, is, when found to be poisonous or deleterious to health by its continuous or indiscriminate use, an offense against the pure food laws of the State, under the definition of an "adulteration” contained in clause 7, par. b. § 3, of the act, as amended April 22, 1890.-STATE V. HUTCHINSON, Ohio, 45 N. E. Rep. 1043.
32. CRIMINAL LAW-Subornation of Perjury- Pending Cause.-To come within Rev. St. 1889, § 3670, providing for the punishment of one who attempts to induce a person to commit perjury "in any cause, matter, or proceeding in or concerning which such other person might by law be sworn," etc., such attempt must be in reference to a cause then pending.-STATE V. HOWARD, Mo., 38 S. W. Rep. 908.
33. CRIMINAL PRACTICE-Rape Indictment.-An in. dictment under Code Cr. Proc. 1895, art. 633, providing that “rape is the carnal knowledge of a female under the age of fifteen years, other than the wife of the per: son," an indictment is fatally defective which fails to negative the fact that the female was the wife of de. fendant.-RICE V. STATE, Tex., 38 S. W. Rep. 801.
Exemplary Damages. The rule that exemplary damages cannot be allowed against a mas. ter for negligence of a servant if he is personally free from fault is not applicable where a railroad train was wrecked, and a person killed, by reason of the failure of the conductor and engineer in charge to obey orders received, though they were competent and selected
--The neglect of the insured
Honduct in dissoading
any trees, and make necessary roads to remove sald
2017-11e's separate Property. - tala per bark and trees, during said term, without being liable
**!u the wife was, by ber direc for trespags," there is not an absolute sale of all the C:n the bugband, who took title
octi asori bark and trees upon the land, but only so much as tbe
that the wite allowed the considered vendee may out and remove within the term men. upite of the electibereol, alun oltbe!: tioned.-WEBBER V. PROCTOR, Me., 36 Atl. Rep. 61.
to the use of ibe money for Co., Io., and sorte Rer. St. 184, 86, to
58. LANDO 37. DIVORCE-Jurisdiction.-A court of Indiana has
121131 been reduced to pos. jurisdiction to decree a divorce, where the marriage
- LEIRE GROCERT CO. F. took place and the cause for divorce occurred lo an.
lessee toi other State, only when the applicant has, in good faith
detnised obtained a domicile in Indiana.- DICKINSON V. DICK - der tages - R.zbte of not reliefni INSON, Mass., 45 N. E. Rep. 1091.
pe!, 153. $ 1, providing that protected 38. DIVORCE IN FOREIGN STATE-Validity.-W bere &
10 vozan are free from the debte fect.-"EL!
aid for by the labor of the married woman living with her husband in Arizona
debent against tbe bosband. goes to Montana to spend the summer, and, on heariug
100S, W. Rep. 807. that her husband has commenced action for a divorce,
der ile te returns io Arizona, and is there served with summons, 3- ezer - Fraud.- debtor in vacaled. and thereafter, before decree rendered, returns to
Tot estances may prefer one presentat Montana, there is no evidence to establish the fact
A faet It may be to the ex for the d", that she was a non-resident of Arizona.-STATE v.
rule Day Include relatives served in GIROUX, Mont., 47 Pac. Rep. 798.
editors.-NATIONAL BANK tion of the
23, Seb., TU S. W. Rep. 59. 39. DOWER – Assignment.-In assigning dower, the
top of a
Hits-Forfeiture.- Porleiture commissioners should not regard merely the fee-sim
lessee, WL ple value of the various tracts, but should estimate the
update non-payment of assessments
-PEOPLE. income of the entire estate, and set off to the widow
Etih knowledge of the 1088,
45 8. EB.p.1
and retains, the sount of such part as will yield her one-third of such income
60. LIBEL IS FULLER V. CONRAD'S ADMR., Va., 26 S. E. Rep. 575.
MARSHALL FARMERS lication is 40. ESTOPPEL Damages.-In an action to recover
forth inte for the wrongful seizure and sale on execution of
it le oby... plaintiff's wagons left in the hands of its agent, as the
rightly.st: property of the agent, it was error to charge that, if
titled to a ti the agent claimed the property, plaintiff was estopped
malice.-SHA from claiming it, where it did not appear that it did any act, or made any false representations to defend.
61. LIMITATI ants, which caused them to believe that the wagons belonged to the agent, or that, knowing the manner in
years, and which the agent was dealing with them, they ac:
except.on, quiesced therein.-STRATTON-WHITE Co. v. CASTLE
six years, .. BERRY, Tex., 38 8. W. Rep. $35.
V. ESGER, AL 41. EVIDENCE-Parol Evidence to Explain Writing:
pecuniary loss to him.
62. LIS PEST In a suit to recover the price of goods delivered under
reversal of an instrument reciting, “P bought of E (plaintif the
entered in tl.. marble counters $2,500," parol evidence is admissible
--- Application of one to be
been fled, to prove that the agreed price was more than the sum
knowledge o mentioned.-- EMMETT V, PENOYER, N. Y., 45 N. E. Rep.
fore another 1041.
of the llen, 42. FEDERAL COURTs-Supreme Court.-A writ of er.
1951, § 323 et ses ror to a State supreme court cannot be sustained when
on realty, But no federal right was set up or claimed until the filing
table to plaintifi, shows an
the party boi of a petition for rehearing, after final decision bs such
shall not op court.-PIM V. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, U. S. S.C., 17 8. O.
To Co., Ind., AN. E. Rep.
bona fide punci Rep. 322.
PENSINGTON 43. GARNISHMENT - Funds in the Hands of Assiguee.
- atraction of Contract.
to be gathered from -After an assignment for the benefit of creditors, the
put, und 0 DroFiBlon is to be
action for ina funds in the hands of the assignee cannot be bound by
zistent with orber prosje.
amining may process of foreign attachment served upon the case
dence in his signor as garnishee.-IN RE MCDANIEL & HARVEY CO.' ESTATE, Penn., 36 Atl. Rep. 567.
1.1. KOOST, Ohio, 45 . E.
1138. 44. GUARANTY-Release of Guarantor.-The fact that
Judicial acts, - judge,
61. MARITIM the debtor gave the creditor security for the debt, par.
14,16 pot liable to a sult for
supplies, ont ment of which was guarantied, did not discharge the
4.0 erroneous his acte may
ing control ai guarantor, where the security was also given expressly
26.0us of corrupt motive.
party required for his benefit.-PEORIA SAVINGS, LOAN & TRUST CO.,
bis Own Exp ELDER, 1))., 45 N, E. Rep. 1083.
W-st-Indemnity.-In &t ac
stances are y 45. HOMESTEAD - Sale on Execution. The fact that
of a contractor, for indem
existence in the owner of a homestead executes & warranty deed
bent recovered against it
to make such of it does not authorize its sale on execution against
2015 A pipe left on the side.
lier that the her, where the deed is in fact a mortgage.-188 v.
ball notice to come in and
ZIEGLER, C.S STEWART, Wash., 47 Pac. Rep. 736.
a that action is conclusive
65. VARRIAC 46. HUSBAND AND WIFE
marriage bei married woman is not estopped to recover property
ing entered CATOR, ETC. OF CITY OF NEW
marriage Deti voluntarily conveyed by her to her husband, such cod.
contracted it veyance being void, by the fact that she afterwards joined her husband in conveying it to a third person,
Destable Interest.--To constitute an
s, the title of the assured Y flough it be bolds such a
at its destruction by the
ISMENDENHALL, III., 45
300000 an insarance policy, a header in the company od Paras jesued, tbat he paid for Citate poliey should have been
the mistake, and without bis
ng made a detendaut.-KIESH.
* The plantle construction is possi
Cancellation of Deed. - 4
with due care. -LOUISVILLE, ETC. ADMX., Ky., 38 S. W. Rep. 852.
35. DEATH BY WRONGFUL ACT-- Damages.-In a statu. tory action to recover for death by wrongful act, it is error to allow the jury to consider damages sustained by decedent's children from the loss of nurture, in. struction, and moral and physical training received from the father, of the value of which there was po evidence.-WALKER V. LAKE SHORE & M. S. Ry. Co., Mich., 69 N. W. Rep. 1114.
? 1994 the damages, the existence
- ucretions lease for
void, in the a
riages or mar without consideration, in order to have It conveyed to
le boundaries, tbe east. a daughter of the husband by a former marriage, in
usplaining "145 acres, more
B009 were pr?
time of tber
be rent abould be a cer
45 N. E. Rep.
36. DEED8--Trees. When a grantor in a deed con. veys bemlock bark and trees upon a certain tract of land "with the right to enter upon said lot of land at any and all times during the term of ten years, to cut
15.11. E. Rep. 1122
trees, and make secessary rozba to
and trees, during said term, is ' trespass," there is not an absolute #1
200 trees upon We land, bot opa y a. lee was cut sad remove within the 10.- HEBBER V. PROCTOR, Ve., HAAL &
DIVORCE-Jurisdiction.- coarte bez diction to decree u divorce, where it 2
place and the cause for divorce state, only wben the applicant des to
ned domleile la lodjana.- DICIALES: x, Mass., 45 S. E. Rep. 1091.
DIVORCE IN FOREIGY STATE-TRIMIT? ied woman living with her bastan!!..
to Yoptana to spend the sonner, 14 her husband has commenced action to ps to Arizona, and is there serred til thereafter, before decree rendere ana, there is no evidence to estan
she was a non-resident of Ariza CX, Voat., 17 Pac. Rep. 79. DOWEB - Assigoment.-ID design ti Dissioners should not regert er?! que of the various tracts, botiboak be of the entire estate, and set of part as will yleid her one iBiN of ! ER V. CONRAD'S ADXR., Va., 38.AM ESTOPPKL - Damages.-ID an action lie wronglai seizure and sale oni tiff's wagons left in the hands of its de | rty of the agent, it was error to elur
at claimed the property, plaintif : claiming it, where it did not appear (t, or made any false representatiaa.
47. HUSBAND AND WIFE-Wife's Separate Property.Wbere money belonging to the wile was, by her direc. tion, invested lo land by the husband, who took title in his own name, the fact that the wife allowed the title so to remala, io ignorance of the effect thereof, does not show an assent to the use of the money for tiis benefit, sufficient, under Rev. St. 1889, $ 6069, to raise the presumption that it had been reduced to pos. session by the husband. - ALKIRE GROCERY CO. V. BALLENGER, Mo., 38 S. W. Rep. 911.
45. HUSBAND AND WIFE – Wife's Wages - Rights of Creditore.-Under Aet April 11, 1873, § 1, providing that the wages of a married woman are free from the debts of the busband, real estate paid for by the labor of the wife is not subject to a judgment against the husband. -WALLACE V, Mason, Ky., 38 8. W. Rep. 887.
4. INSOLVENCY - Preferences - Frand.- A debtor in failing or insolvent circumstances may prefer one creditor notwithstanding the fact it may be to the exclusion of others; and this rule may include relatives of the debtor, who are his creditors.-NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE V. CHAPXAN, Neb., 70 N. W. Rep. 39.
5). INSURANCE-Assessments-Forfeiture.-Forfeiture of a mutual tire policy for non-payment of assessments is waived if the company, with knowledge of the loss, collects from the insured, and retains, the amount of the delinquent assessments. MARSHALL FARMERS' HOJE FIRE Ing. CO. V. LIGGETT, Ind., 45 N. E. Rep. 1062.
51. INSURANCE-Defenses.-The neglect of the insured to nse all reasonable means to save the property at and after the fire, and his misconduct in dissuading others from attempting to save it, defeats a recovery ouly as to the property lost in consequence of such Deglect and misconduct.-WOLTERS V. WESTERN ASSUR. Co., Wis., 70 N. W. Rep. 62.
52. INSURANCE-Insurable Interest.-To constitute an josurable interest in realty, the title of the assured need not be one in fee. It is enough if he holds such a relation to the property that its destruction by the peril insured against involves pecuniary loss to him.HOME INS. CO. OF NEW YORK V. MENDENHALL, III., 45 S. Rep. 1078.
Parties. — Application of one to be made a defendant in an action on an insurance policy, aileying that he is a stockholder in the company on whose property the policy was issued, that he paid for the insurance, and that the policy sbould have been made payable to him, but by mistake, and without his koowledge, was made payable to plaintiff, shows an interest entitling bim to be made a defendant.-KIRSU. BAUM V. HANOVER FIRE Ins. Co., Ind., 45 N. E. Rep.
Construction of Contract.
which caused them to believe that ged to the agent, or that, knowing 1
the agent was dealing with the ced therein.-SIBATTON-WHITE , , 1, Tex., 38 S. W. Rep. 535. ESIDENCE-Parol Evidence to Esplants uit to recover the price of goods della strument reciting, “P bought of IT le counters $2,5:10," parol evidedes
ve that the agreed price was nört til oned. - EMMETT V. PExOTEL, S.L.
tain per cent of the value, to be determined by ap. praisements at intervals of 10 years: Held, that in such appraisements the lessor was entitled to have considered accretions gubgequently formed by reces. sion of the river. - ALLEN V. ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. Co., Mo., 38 S. W. Rep. 957.
58. LANDLORD AND TENANT Destruction. At cominon law, where there is a covenant on the part of the lessee to pay rent for the term, and buildings on the demised premises are destroyed by tire, the tenant is not relieved from the payment of rent unless he has protected himself by a provision in the leage to that effect.-FELIX V. GRIFFITHS, Obio, 45 N. E. Rep. 1092.
FEDERAL COURTS-Supreme Court.-C.
a State supreme court cannot be sore leral right was set up or claimed att etition for rebearing, after final det?
- PIM V. CITY OF ST. Lotis, V..!
ARNISHMENT – Funds in the Bank ran assignment for the liebest of
in the hands of the assigned
as of foreign attachment optred DHE
as garnisbee.-IN RE MCDANTEL HELE E, Penn., 36 Atl. Rep. 357.
TARANTY-Release of Guarantur.- tema ptor gave the creditor security for txa
of which was guarantied, did see tor, where the security was aler:
benefit.- PEORIA SAVINGS, LUND 1, Ill., 15 N. E. Rep. 1083. TOMESTEAD - Sale on Esecutionluer of a bomestead esecuté : pes not authorize its sale on secil here the deed is in fact a morala RT, Wash., 47 Pac. Rep. 736.
34. INSURANCE POLICY The meaning of a contract is to be gathered from a consideration of all its parts, and no provision is to be wholly disregarded as inconsistent with other provis. lons unless po cther reasonable construction is possible.-GERMAN FIRE INs. Co. v. Roost, Ohio, 45 N. E. Rep. 1097.
35. JUDGES – Liability for Judicial Acts. A judge, atting within his jarisdiction, is not liable to a suit for damages, however illegal or erroneous his acts may be, in the absence of a malicious or corrupt motive.HOLLON V. LILLY, Ky., 38 S. W. Rep. 878. 56. JUDGMENT-Res Judicata – Indemnity.-In an action by a city on the bond of a contractor, for indemalty after payment of a judgment recovered against it lor personal injuries caused by a pipe left on the side. Walk, where the contractor had notice to come in and delend, the judgment roll in that action is conclusive Ekidence of the amount of the damages, the existence
che obstruction, and the freedom of the injured per. 891 from negligence. - MAYOR, ETC. OF CITY OF NEW YORK V. BRADY, N. Y., 45 N. E. Rep. 1122. 57. LANDLORD AND TENANT-Accretions.-A lease for 30 years described the land by its boundaries, the eastera being a river, and as containing “245 acres, more
JUSBAND AND FIFE -- Cascellati
59. LANDLORD AND TENANT – Vacation by Insolvent Tenant.--A re-entry and reletting by the landlord, un. der the terms of a lease, after the premises were vacated by the receiver of an insolvent lessee, and a presentation of a claim by the landlord to the receiver for the difference between the amount of rental re. served in the first and second leases, is not a cancellation of the open, gubsisting engagement, and substitu. tion of a claim for a contingent liability of the original lessee, which the receiver had no power to recognize. - PEOPLE V. ST. NICHOLAS BANK OF NEW YORK, N. Y., 45 N. E.Rep. 1129.
60. LIBEL PER SE — Proof of Malice. – A certain pub. lication made by the defendant of and concerning the plaintiff ag an attorney at law and county attorney set forth in the opinion herein, considered and held, that it is obviously libelous per se, and that the trial court rightly instructed the jury that the plaintiff was en. titled to a verdict in some amount without proof of malice.-SHARP V. LARSON, Minn., 70 N. W. Rep. 1.
61. LIMITATIONS Exception Burden of Proof.Where the plea is the statute of limitations of six years, and plaintiff replies that defendant is within the exception, because he has not resided in the State for six years, plaintiff has the burden of proof.-CONDON V. ENGER, Ala., 21 South. Rep. 227.
62. LIS PENDENS Bona Fide Purchaser.- Where the reversal of a decree to enforce a vendor's lien has been entered in the lower court, and no lis pendens has ever been filed, one who, for value, and without actual knowledge of the pending suit, purchases the land be. fore another decree is rendered, takes it discharged of the lien, under Rev. St. 1834, § 327 et seq. (Rev. St. 1881, $ 325 et seq.), providing that a suit to enforce a lien op realty, not founded on an instrument executed by the party holding the legal title as appears of record, shall not operate as constructive notice as against a bona fide purchaser, unless a lis pendens has been filed.PENNINGTON V. MARTIN, Ind., 45 N. E. Rep. 1111.
63. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION-Probable Cause.-In an action for malicious prosecution, the fact that the examining magistrate discharged plaintiff without evi. dence in his behalf is prima facie evidence of want of probable cause.-HIDY V. MURRAY, Iowa, 69 N. W. Rep. 1138.
64. MARITIME LIENS Supplies. - One furnishing supplies, on the order of a person or corporation hav. ing control and possession of a vessel under a charter party requiring the charterer to provide supplies at his own expense, acquires no lien, when the circumstances are such as to put him on inquiry as to the existence and terms of the charter party, and he fails to make such inquiry, and chooses to act on a mere be. lief that the vessel will be liable.-THE VALENCIA V. ZIEGLER, U.S.S. C., 17 S. C. Rep. 323.
65. MARRIAGE-Validity – Evidence.-The contract of marriage being a contract jure gentium, capable of being entered into as of common right, a common-law marriage between a white man and a colored woman, contracted in another State per verba de præsenti, iş void, in the absence of proof that common-law mar. riages or marriages between white and colored per. sons were prohibited by the laws of that State at the time of the marriage. LAURENCE V. LAURENCE, 11., 45 N. E. Rep. 1071.
woman is not stopped to Jarily conveyed by her to be tes! le being void, by the fact that
her husband in coureyingi nt consideration, in order to be
hter of the husband by a form bt plaintiff's rights. - COSTIEN
or less," and provided that the rent should be a cer