« PreviousContinue »
Cook v. Cook, 155.
Fitzgerald v. Staples, 399.
. v. Marion Co, 321.
v. Metts, 361. “ v. Scripps, 485. Fourth Nat Bk. v. Franklin Co., 321. Fox v. Hudson, 76. Frank, ex parte, 16.
" V. Frank, 456. Fraser, in re, 227. Fredenburg v. Lyon Lake M. E.
vetroit. Noye, 347 138.
Daggett v. Daggett, 137.
v. Davis, 298.
v. Neligh, 379.
Gall v. Flesher, 74.
" v. Conn, 378.
1 v. Williams, 342.
ley, 387. Grand Tower Trans. Co. v. Ullman,
58. Graves v. Braden, 477. Gray v. Coan, 178.
" v. Lake, 98. Greer v. Higgins, 218. Gridley v. City of Bloomington, 426. Gross v. Funk, 299. Grove v. Wise, 197. Guen therv, Jacobs, 194.
Jackson v. Kniffen, 138.
v. Boston & Maine R. R., 336.
v. Smallwood, 215. Jones v. Carnahan, 439.
v. Clifton, 89.
v. Shaw, 277. " Whitehead, 99. Judah v. Hogan, 156. Justice v. Nesquehoning R. R., 182.
Eaton v. Supervisors of Monitowoc
Co., 258. Edmonson v. Corn, 457. Edwards v. Brown, 198. Eggleston y. Boardman, 419. Eisenmeyer v, Yaeger, 262. Ellett v. richardson, 146. Elliott v. St. L. I. M. R. R., 119, 305. Einmett v. Yandes, 198. Empire Trans. Co. v. Richards, 137. Endell v. Liebroch, 378. England v. Walker, 41. Englis v, State, 334. Erdinann v. Mulual Ins. Co., 216. Evans v. Pack, 409.
Haag v. Comm’rs of Vanderberg Co.,
Co., 193, 401.
1 y. Thayer, 397.
“ v. Woodrufr, 157. Hart v. Giles, 47. Harvey v. C. & P. R., 178.
v. Harvey, 18,
Lake Shore & M. S. R. R. v. Knittal,
416. Langston v. Aderhold, 461. Lapham v. Martin, 38. Laveille, in re, 241. Lawrence v. Com., 213. Lehigh Valley Ccal Co. v. Jones, 15. Lehman v. Berdin, 269. Leidersdorf v. Flint, 405, 495. Leonard v. Phillips, 179. Leper v. Lyon, 479. Leverick v. Frank, 379. Levi v. National Bk. of Mo., 249. Lewis v. City of Clarendon, 287.
v. Mahon, 99,
Osborn v. Farwell, 18. Owen v. Davis, 317.
Mackintosh v. Eliot. Nat. Bk. 137.
* v. State, 59.
" y. People, 97.
" v. Trustees of Schools, 195.
v, I.' & St. L. Bridge Co. 311. Mosher v. Arnold. 106. Mott v. Consumers Ice Co., 222. Murphy v. Swadner, 75. Musser v. Brink, 499. Myer v. Whittaker, 141.
Page v. Clopton, 296.
“ v. Wallace, 98. Paine y, Boston, 235. Palmer v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co.,
" Sav. Bk. v. Sargent, 259.
298. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Fries, 95.
v. Miller, 435. People v. Babcock, 344.
v. Big Muddy Irio Co., 337.
V. Walser, 261.
" v. Western Seaman's Fund Soc., 319. Peoppers v. M. K. & T. R. R,, 59, 252. Perkins v. Guy, 382. Perry v. Porter, 99. Pettu v. Peppard, 298. Phelps v. Goddard, 203.
" v. Whitiker, 419. Philometh College v. Hartlegg, 379. Phænix Life Ins. Co. v. Saettél, 398. Pierce, in re, 237.
• v, Fuller, 344. Pitts., Cin. & St. L. R. R. v. Dewin,
282." Pitts., Oin. & St. L. R. R. v. Moore,
500, Pitts., Ft. Wayne & Ch. R. R. v. Lew.
“ v. Kirk, 221.
Sely y. Belden. 98.
v. Martin, 275.
v. Baetz, 377.
v. Beckwith, 479
v. Brown, 440,
V. Stubbs, 456.
v. Taylor, 275.
" v. Walker, 390.
v. School Directors, 297.
6 v. State, 835. Taylor v. Comm'rs of Highways, 26 7
Queen v. Willings 16.
Randige v. Lyman, 178.
“ v. Tubbs, 231. Read v. Power, 231. Reynolds, ex parte, 95.
v. Bullock, 96. Rich v. State Nat. Bk. 379. Richardson v. Rardin, 155.
* v. Rice, 99, 225. Richmond, in re , 435.
& Pet. R. R. v. Kasey, 142. Rickenbacker v. Zimmerman, 274. Riggs v. Uptegrove, 317. Ripley v. McBarron, 417. Robbins v. Phillips, 480. Roberge v. Burnham, 179. Robertson v. Cease, 476. Robinson v. Yates City Lodge, 97. Rodocanachi v. Buttrick, 476. Rogers v. Mayfield, 321. Rolles v. Harris, 74. Roorke v. Goldstein, 319. Ropes v. Upton, 459. Rosenthal v. Mayhew, 315. Rossiter v. Miller, 256. Rudolf v. Winters, 379. Ruffner v. C. H. & D. R. R., 316. Rugh v. Ottenheimer, 361.
Walfani, ve, 234. 278. a. 297.
Seeley Balker, 300, 416, 449
National Pemberton Bk. v. Porter,
325. National Mahaiwe Bk. v. Barry, 460.
Security Bk. v. Hupne.
well, 178. State 'Bk. of Camden, v.
Pierce, 21. Nelson v. White, 236. Newby v. Sharpe, 194. Nichols v. Ruggles, 138. Nimmons v. Westfall, 378. Northwestern Fertilizing Co. v.
Hyde Park, 470. Nussbaumery. Becker, 117.
v. Hipple, 458. Nye v. Otis, 343.
Sample v. Broadwell, 116. Sanderson v. Penn. Coal Co., 189. Sarback y. Jones, 235.
Taylor y. Rockefeller, 231, 349.
v. New Bedford B. R. Thomas v. Croswell, 343.
“ v. Wiesman, 216. Thompson v. Boyle, 302.
“ v. Sage, 57. Thurber v. Anderson, 233. Tibbals v. Libby, 185. Tillson v. Robbins, 361. Titus v. Lewis, 478. Toledo, W. & W. Ry. v. Grable, 233. Towanda Coal Co. v. Heeman, 161. Traynor v. People, 97. Trinidad Nat. Bk. v. Denver Nat. Bk.,
171. Truesdell v. Combs, 336. Truitt v. People, 116. Trustees of Ind. Spiritual Assn. v. Reynolds, 279.
• of Schools v. Raukenberg, 196. Tullis v. Bk. of Attica, 117. Turner v. Clark Co., 317. Twycross v. Grant, 481.
Walden v. Karr, 257.
“ v. Shreve, 38.
" v. Stumpt, 215. West v. Krebaum, 338. Westermann v. Cape Girardeau Co.,
353. Westlake v. St. Louis, 418. Weston y. Weston, 357. Wharton v. Wilson, 117, Wheeler v. Am. Cent. Ins. Co., 199. Whipp y. State, 316.
White v. Penn. Ins. Co., 418.
v. Savery, 416. “ v. State, 461. Whiting v. Gearty, 307. Whitney v. First Nat. Bk., 342.
v. Karner, 278. Wichita Bk. . A., T. & S. F. R. R. 197. Wilcox v. Mussche, 197. Wiley v. Paney, 376. Wilhite v. Barr, 119. Wilkins v. Irvine, 315.
v. Moore, 196.
v. State, 398.
v. First Nat. Bk., 122.
The Central Law Journal.
If, in the transfer of negotiable paper, an indorsement is omitted through accident, mis
take or fraud, a good title will pass in equity SAINT LOUIS, JULY 5, 1878.
by mere delivery. This is held in Hughes v.
Nelson, 1 N. J. L. J. 175, a case in the New CURRENT TOPICS.
Jersey Court of Chancery, and decided last month. At law it is clear a written endorse
ment is absolutely indispensible to the transfer In Bamberg v. Stein, decided last month,
of title to negotiable paper, but a much more VAN HOESEN, J. of the New York Court of
liberal rule prevails in equity. In equity a
chose in action, even when it consists of a Common Pleas, sitting in General Term, held
bond and mortgage, may be assigned by mere that a composition in bankruptcy, under the
delivery and without any writing whatever. act of June 22, 1874, operates as a satisfaction
Galway v. Fullerton, 2 C. E. Green, 394; 2 of debts fraudulently contracted. The Special
Story's Eq. Juris., § 1047; and negotiable Term ruled to the contrary, on the ground that
paper transferred in the same mode will, in sec. 5117 of the United States Revised Statutes
equity, confer upon the transferee all the rights declares that “no debt created by fraud shall
which at law he would acquire by a written be discharged by proceedings in bankruptcy."
endorsement. Judge Story says that if, by misAs to this, the court of review said: “A com
take, accident or fraud, a note has been position was not one of the proceedings in
omitted to be endorsed upon a transfer, bankruptcy referred to in that section, for the
when it was intended it should be, the party law providing for composition was not enacted
may be compelled by a court of equity to until 1874, and section 5117 was passed in / make the endorsement. Story's Promissory 1873. The learned justice, at Special Term, / Notes, $120; 1 Story's Eq. Juris., & 99; and in said that the laws were in pari materia, and Chitty on Bills, 203, it is said that it has been that therefore section 5117 must be held to adjudged that if a trader delivered a bill for apply to and qualify the act of 1874. In that a valuable consideration to another previously he was in error. The act of 1874 is entitled to an act of bankruptcy, and forgot to endorse 'An act to amend and supplement' the Bank- | it, he might endorse it after his bankruptcy. ruptcy Act of 1874. We refer to the title of Smith v. Pickering, Peake's Cases, 50; Anon. the act of 1874 merely for the purpose of giv- | 1 Camp. 492; Rolleston v. Herbert, 3 Dun. ing point to the observation that the composi | 411; and if he and his assignees refused, they tion procreding is a method supplementary to might be compelled to do so by bill in equity. that originally provided for the release of a Ex parte Greening, 13 Ves. 206 ; ex parte bankrupt from his debts. A composition is an Mowbray, 1 Jac. and Walk. 428; ex parte entirely different thing from a discharge. It Rhodes, 3 Mont. and Ayt. 217; Watkins v. is a new way of freeing the bankrupt. The Maule, 2 Jac. and Walk. 243. In the case differences between discharge and composition last cited, the note had been made by the have been repeatedly pointed out. Lowell, drawer for the accommodatlon of the payee J., in ex parte Morris, 12 N. B. R., 170, says
who negotiated it, but omitted to endorse it. that a creditor might vote on a composition
The Master of the Rolls, in speaking to the though he bought his claim with intend to pre
point under discussion, said: “When a note vent the adoption of a pending resolution for
is handed over for a valuable consideration, a composition. In ordinary proceedings in
the endorsement is mere form; the transfer
for consideration is the substance; it creates bankruptcy he could not even prove his claim unless he should swear that be had not bought
an equitable right and entitles the party to call it with a view of influencing the proceedings,
for the form. The other party is bound to do And in re Haskell, 11 N. B. R. 164, the same
that formal act in order to substantiate the learned judge said that a debtor might com
right of the party to whom he has transferred pound with his creditor, though he could not obtain his discharge, because he had given preference after becoming insolvent." See In Croft v. Pilgrim, recently decided by the also Wells v. Lamprey, 16 N. B. R. 205 ; 5 | Appellate Court of Illinois, the plaintiff owned Cent. L. J. 259 ; re Schaffer, 17 N. B. R. 116. land in Bureau County, and defendant had
Vol.7 -No. 1.
led to assignees mbert, Dron
ges before a justice of the Webb, 1 Taunt. 379.
erected a dam on his own land in Stark Coun Thompson v. Crocker, 9 Pick. 59; Warren v. ty, which overflowed the land of plaintiff. He Webb, 1 Taunt. 379; contra, Worster v. Winnisued for damages before a justice of the piseogee Lake Co., 25 N. H. 525. peace in Stark County, who dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction. On appeal this ruling was reversed, the court holding that where The question, What is a “ usual covenant” one performs an act in one county which dam in a lease, came before the English High Court ages lands in another the plaintiff may sue in of Justice lately in the case of Hampshire v. either county. The reports, it appears, con- | Wickens, 38 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 408. The tain but few cases upon this point, though defendant had entered into an agreement to writers on law concur in the rule as followed i take a lease for a dwelling-house, to contain in this case. i Chitty's Pl. 269; 3 Black, 294; "all usual covenants and provisos.” The 4 Com. Dig. 167, 250, 251; Gould's Pl. 108; lease tendered to the defendant contained a Angell on Watercourses, $ 420. This doctrine covenant that the lessee would not, without the originated in Bulwer's case, 7 Coke, 63, al- lessor's consent, “ assign, underlet or part although reference is there made to the ruling with the premises; but such consent not to in the year books in the Abbot of Stratford's | be withheld to a respectable and responsible case, where a similar question arose. The tenant.” The court held that a covenant not to principle, however, in the former case is stated assign was not a “usual” covenant. Jessel, M. in broad and general terms, that “in all cases
R., said: “This was decided by Lord Thurlow where the action is founded upon two things
in.Henderson v. Hay, 3 Bro. C. C. 632; by Lord done in several counties, and both are material
Eldon in Church v. Brown, 15 Ves. 258, and or traversable, and the one without the other
more recently by the Court of Appeal in Hodgdoth not maintain the action, then the plaintiff
kinson v. Crowe, L. R., 10 Ch. 622, 33 L. T. may choose to bring his action in which of the
Rep. (N. S.) 388, and by Bacon, V. C., in counties he will.” This view of the law was
the same case, L. R., 19 Eq. 593, 33 L. T. sanctioned in Mayor of London v. Cole, 7
Rep. (N. S.) 122, so that it can not now be Term. R, 583, where Lawrence, J., says that
fairly disputed. It is true that a contrary de“the rule in Bulwer's case gives a decisive
cision of Romilly was cited—Haines v. Buranswer to the application ; it shows that, where
nett, —but that case appears to me to be several material facts arise in different coun
opposed both to principle and authority, and ties, the plaintiff may bring his action in
it must now be treated as distinctly overruled either.” In Oliphant v. Smith, 3 Penn. 180,
by Hodgkinson v. Crowe. In Haines v. Burit is said “ that every action founded upon a
nett, Lord Romilly, without any special prolocal cause shall be brought in the county
vision having been made in the contract to where the cause of action arises. The only
that effect, held that a covenant should be inexception to this rule is the erection of a nui
serted making the lease determinable on the sance in one county to the injury of lands in
bankruptcy of the lessee or on his making any another. There the action may be brought in
arrangement for the benefit of his creditors. either,” and reference is made to Bac. Ab.,
That was, in fact, nothing less than a variation 56, 57, and 58; Com. Dig. 250, 251. So in
of the contract. I can not see any reason for Barden v. Crocker, 10 Pick. 383, the rule in
holding such a covenant to be usual, and it is Bulwer's case is endorsed in the following
rather difficult, in looking at the case, to emphatic language by the court: “ The plain
understand how it was decided. Lord Romilly tiff may unquestionably maintain his action in
seems to have thought that, in considering either county-in Bristol, where the obstruc
general covenants and all such other covenants tion was raised, as well as in Plymouth, where
as are usually inserted in leases of property of the injury was sustained. The law to be col
a similar description, some regard might be lected from the Bulwer case is decisive upon
had to the peculiar nature and tenure of the this point. When one matter in one county is
property ; but I can not find any evidence on depending upon the matter in another county,
that point mentioned in that report, and it the plaintiff may choose in which county he
would seem that the judge, from his view of shall bring his action.” See also Mersey &
the nature of the property, inserted the clause. Irwell Nav. Co. v. Douglas, 2 East. 502;
But when we look at the reasoning of Bacon,