« PreviousContinue »
GALPIN v. PAGE.
also took his interest with similar knowledge of the defect. Independently of this fact, their title fell with the reversal of the decree. On this subject we can add nothing to what was said in the opinion of the supreme court, except that the doctrine of Reynolds v. Harris was reaffirmed in the late case of Reynolds v. Hosmer, reported in 45 California, 617.
As to the claim for rents, we are of opinion that the cost of filling up the water lot, which was a valuable and permanent improvement, is a just offset to the rents received or which might have been received by the defendant.
It follows from the views we have expressed that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the possession of the premises ; and such judgment will be entered upon the findings filed — with costs.
mitted with the greatest caution. Brady v. Am. Steamship Co. 402.
to have thereby detracted materially from the merit of his services, and the compensa-
tion was reduced accordingly Ib.
existed there. The Champion, 493.
ASSIGNMENT OF DEBT.
the assignor may thereafter be employed, although followed by a subsequent notice of
BAILOR AND BAILEE.
in a coach-house, the case comes within the second class of the fifth sort of bailment
public employment; and he is bound to take reasonable care. Searle v. Laverick, 174.
involves in it an obligation to take reasonable care that any building in which it is
deposited is in a proper state, so that the thing deposited may be reasonably safe in it;
absolutely safe. Ib.
no difference in his liability. Ib.
the carriages were placed under a shed on defendant's premises, a charge being made
invalidate a judgment and levy on his property when the debt is due and he has no
defence. Wilson v. Bank of St Paul, 1.
to prevent the judgment and levy, and a failure to do so is not sufficient evidence of
the bankrupt law. Ib.
the debtor, his judgment and levy upon his property are not, therefore, void, and are
no violation of the act. Ib.
ruptcy, though commenced within four months after levy of the execution or rendition
of the judgment. Ib.
where there exists some equitable consideration or agreement between the parties
which would render it unjust not to allow a set-off. Gray v. Rollo, 195.
one of them and a third person, the two claims are not subject to set-off under the
bankrupt act, being neither mutual debts nor (without more) mutual credits. Ib.
off the debt against his separate indebtedness to the bankrupt, because each joint
this would be unjust to the other joint creditor. Ib.
company. B and C held policies in this company which became due in consequence
been contracted without any reference to each other. Ib.
rights, title, or prerogatives, unless expressly included within the terms of the law.
General discussion of the requirements of the bankrupt act by Mr. Justice CLIFFORD.
U. S. v. Herron, 274.
not uniform in its operation. In re Deckert, 336.
involuntary cases must show affirmatively a compliance with the provisions of the act
as to number and amount of claims of creditors. In re Scammon, 372.
and made to contain the allegations of the requisite number and amount. 1b.
tion should be sworn to as if it were an original paper. Ib.
in the petition is not sufficient, even though it be admitted by the debtor that the
act of June 22, 1874, it must be so amended as to show affirmatively that the requisite
the petitioning creditors to an adjudication, is of no moment. In re Scull, 416.
must be averred that he procured it to be taken. 15.
June 22, will not warrant the signing of an order of adjudication afterward nunc pro
tunc. In re Hill, 421,
number and amount of petitioning creditors. The admission of the debtor that the
tion of the court. In re Keeler, 422.
liable to be sued as if sole, she may be adjudged bankrupt. In re Lyons, 167.
to cases which were pending at the time of its passage. In re Griffiths, 476.
See HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, 1 ; JUDGMENT NOTE.
BILLS AND NOTES.
was added : “And we agree also to pay an attorney's fee of ten per cent. if this note
liquidated damages. McIntyre v. Cagley, 104.
with the maker to extend the time of payment, which written instrument contained the
v. Hill, 139.
Prior to the maturity of the note A drew his check on complainants for an amount less
See HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, 1.
BOARD OF BROKERS.
transfer his seat to a party not elected and approved by the board ; and where, upon
ciation, is assets of such insolvent member. Hyde v. Woods, 354.
gust 24, 1872, and being indebted in a large amount to sundry members, on that day
which is such as to excite no suspicion, is estopped to deny the validity of the same on
the ground of an antecedent agreement touching the delivery. Nash v. Fugate, 69.
it was not to be delivered to the obligee unless signed in like manner by others. Obli-
CLOUD ON TITLE.
bility when such exemption is not just and reasonable. N. Y. C. R. R. v. Lockwood, 21.
responsibility for the negligence of himself or his servants. Ib.
and with special force to the latter. Ib.
taking care of his stock on the train, is a passenger for hire. 1b.
occasioned by a cause against which he has stipulated with the shipper, unless it arises