Page images
PDF
EPUB

plaintiff, which promise defendant now refuses to perform. Held, that defendant's agreement and the value of the land to have been conveyed by him might be proved as an admission of the value of the land which he received. · Bassett v. Bassett, 55 Me. 127.

See ESTOPPEL.

AFFIDAVIT.-See REMOVAL OF SUITS FROM STATE TO UNITED STATES COURTS. AGENT. See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.

[blocks in formation]

The alteration of the number of a State bond payable to bearer, and not required by law to be numbered, is immaterial, and though made with fraudulent intent does not avoid it in the hands of a subsequent bona fide holder for value without notice. - Commonwealth v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank, 98 Mass. 12.

ASSAULT AND BATTERY.-See CORPORATION, 3.

ASSIGNMENT.

1. A debtor residing in New York made an assignment with preferences for the benefit of his creditors, such disposition being legal in that State. Inter alia, he conveyed in due form land in New Jersey, by whose laws such assignments are invalid. Held, that the conveyance was valid as against creditors not living in New Jersey. Bentley v. Whittemore, 4 C. E. Green, 462.

2. A Virginia corporation assigned its property for the benefit of creditors, reserving possession to itself for a certain time and giving preferences. Experts testified that by the construction of Stat. 13 Eliz. ch. 5 in Virginia, where the deed was executed, it was not invalid on its face. The corporation, however, had its principal place of business and much of its personal property in Maryland. Held, a good conveyance of the property in Maryland, whatever might be the construction of said statute there. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Glenn, 28 Md. 287. See MORTGAGE; PARTNERSHIP, 1.

ASSUMPSIT.

Plaintiff paid $50 in part performance of an oral contract for the purchase of land. He afterwards refused to go on with the contract and demanded repayment of the $50. Held, that he could not recover. — Plummer v. Bucknam, 55 Me. 105.

See ACTION; ADMISSION; BROKER, 1; CARRIER, 3; CONTRACT, 6; PARENT AND CHILD; TENANCY AT WILL; TENANCY IN COMMON; USURY; WAGER.

ATTACHMENT.

An agent deposited money of his principal in a bank in his own name. The fund was attached by a creditor of the agent, and immediately afterwards notice of ownership was given by the principal. Held, that the attaching creditor was in no better position than the agent making the deposit. — Farmers' & Mechanics' Nat. Bank v. King, 57 Penn. St. 202.

See EXECUTION; PARTNERSHIP, 1.

ATTORNEY.—See CONFEDERATE Money, 4.

[merged small][ocr errors]

- See ATTACHMENT; CARRIER; CONSIGNOR; FINDER OF PROPERTY; LEGAL TENDER, 3-5; RAILROAD, 2; WAGER.

BANK.

The charter of a bank provided that "All bills, bonds, notes, and every contract on behalf of the company, shall be signed by the President, and countersigned and attested by the Cashier of the company; and the funds of the company shall, in no wise, be held responsible for any contract or engagement whatever, unless the same shall be executed as aforesaid." The cashier made a draft in the usual course of his business, signed by himself alone, "R. T. J., cashier." Held, that the above section did not apply, that the bank was liable for advances made upon said draft, and that the cashier was not.-Northern Bank of Ky. v. Johnson, 5 Cold. 88.

See ATTACHMENT; CHECK, 4, 5; LEGAL TENDER, 5; NATIONAL BANK; TAX, 1, 2.

BANKRUPTCY.

When proceedings had been begun in State courts under State laws before the United States Bankrupt Law was enacted they were unaffected by the same, and when the penal clauses of the State laws can be made operative they must be. -Longis v. His Creditors, 20 La. An. 15. See Meekins v. Creditors, 19 ib. 497; 3 Am. Law Rev. 303.

BELLIGERENT RIGHTS. See CONFEDERACY.

BETTERMENT.

The legislature of Oregon authorized a city to assess the cost of improvements on a street in said city to the abutters upon the same. Held, that the act was constitutional. King v. City of Portland, 2 Oregon, 146.

BILL OF LADING.-See PERIL OF THE SEA.

BILLS AND NOTES.

1. A promise to accept a bill made by the drawee to the drawer after the bill has been negotiated by the latter, will not make the drawee liable to the holder as acceptor.Exchange Bank of St. Louis v. Rice, 98 Mass. 288.

2. A bill drawn on the P. Insurance Co. by their agents F. & Co., and ending thus: " Charge the same to account of F. & Co. Agts. P. Ins. Co.," binds F. & Co. personally as drawers, although delivered by the insurance company to payee in payment of a loss on one of their policies, and evidence of a contrary expectation and intent is inadmissible. — Tucker Manufacturing Co. v. Fairbanks, 98 Mass. 101.

the

3. The words "protest waived" on a promissory note do not dispense with demand and notice. — Wilkins v. Gillis, 20 La. An. 538.

4. When the holder of a note was within the United States lines and the maker within the Confederate lines, at its maturity, demand was not necessary until within a reasonable time after the removal of the impediments. - Apperson v. Bynum, 5 Cold. 341; Polk v. Spinks, ib. 431.

See ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS; CHECK; CONTRACT, 4; ILLEGAL CONTRACT, 2; LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF; STAMP.

BONA FIDE PURCHASER. -See SALE, 2.

BOND.

If the assignee of a bond cannot recover on it from the obligor, either because it was originally invalid, or because its consideration had failed before the assignment, he may at once recover from the assignor the amount paid for such bond without offering to return it before action brought.— Flynn v. Allen, 57 Penn. St. 482.

See ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS; ILLEGAL CONTRACT, 2; LEGAL TENDER, 6.

BOUNDARY.-See NUISANCE, 5.

BOUNTY.

1. A law authorizing a town to give bounties and to levy a tax for their payment, to induce persons to enlist in the military service to avoid a pending draft, is constitutional. It is a tax for "corporate purposes."- Taylor v. Thompson, 42 Ill. 9; Kunkle v. Franklin, 13 Minn. 127; Comer v. Folsom, ib. 219; Wilson v. Buckman, ib. 441.

2. So a law giving a like authority to a county. - Henderson v. Lagow, 42 Ill. 360; Briscoe v. Allison, 43 Ill. 291.

3. So one ratifying previous action by a county. State v. Demarest, 3 Vroom,

528.

4. So a like law giving authority to refund private subscriptions for the same purpose. Misner v. Bullard, 43 Ill. 470; State v. Sullivan, ib. 412.

BREACH OF PROMISE.

An action for breach of promise of marriage will not be made to survive by proof that the promisee had a child born out of wedlock, now living, and that the defendant is the father of said child. - Hovey v. Page, 55 Me. 142.

BRIDGE. See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 2.

BROKER.

1. A broker bought stock at ten days buyer's option, making himself liable for the price with his principal's assent. When the time was up, the principal failing to take the stock, the broker paid for it, and, after notifying the former, sold it at a loss, the principal not objecting. Held, that he could recover the loss of his principal, whether the broker's contract with the seller was within the stock-jobbing act or not. Durant v. Burt, 98 Mass. 161.

2. A broker employed to sell property if he also exacts a promise of a fee from a purchaser before sending him to the owner, cannot recover from the owner for his services in effecting a sale.— Walker v. Osgood, 98 Mass. 348.

See CUSTOM, 1.

BURDEN OF PROOF.-See WILL, 1.

CARRIER.

1. Defendants undertook to tow plaintiff's schooner and a Spanish bark from New Orleans to the Gulf of Mexico. In consequence of the bad steering of the bark by its own men it broke loose from the tow-boat and damaged the schooner. Held, that defendants were liable as carriers (HowELL, J., recusing).— Clapp v. Stanton, 20 La. An. 495.

2. The owners of a steamboat are not liable for money stolen from the pocket of a passenger when in bed and asleep, it not being proved it was stolen by persons employed on board. — Abbott v. Bradstreet, 55 Me. 530.

3. A commercial traveller for the plaintiffs bought a ticket of defendants for passage from N. to B. over their own and connecting roads. He delivered with his luggage a valise belonging to the plaintiffs and containing samples, which was lost. Held, that a count in contract could not be supported, and that one in tort was not sustained, no negligences on defendants' road being shown.-Stimson v. Connecticut River R.R. Co., 98 Mass. 83.

4. A carrier is not liable for the loss of money of one passenger contained in a valise which another passenger, with the knowledge of the first, delivers as his own luggage, and the carrier receives as such.- Dunlap & Stewart v. International Steamboat Co., 98 Mass. 371.

5. Carriers cannot be held liable for the breaking of very brittle articles in a package for want of specially careful handling, if they are not warned of the contents of the package. - American Express Co. v. Perkins, 42 Ill. 458. 6. A carrier may contract against loss from fire not caused by his own negligence. N. O. Mut. Ins. Co. v. N. O., J., & G. N. R.R. Co., 20 La. An. 302. 7. Carriers cannot protect themselves from liability for gross negligence by contract.Illinois Central R.R. Co. v. Adams, 42 Ill. 474. See Adams Express Co. v. Haynes, ib. 89, 93.

8. Otherwise, when the passenger is carried free.-Kinney v. Central R.R. Co., 3 Vroom, 407. But see Pennsylvania R.R. Co. v. Butler, 57 Penn. St. 335.

9. By a contract for the carriage of live stock the owner took the risks of dam age "in loading, unloading, conveyance, and otherwise, whether arising from negligence. . . or otherwise." The bottom of the car dropped out. Held, that if the car was unfit the carrier was liable. Hawkins v. Great Western R.R. Co., 17 Mich. 57.

10. A stipulation limiting the liability of a telegraph company, by which a message is sent, to $5 for unrepeated messages will not exonerate a connecting line by which such message is forwarded. — Squire v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 98 Mass. 232. But see (as to a railroad company) Manhattan Oil Co. v. Camden & Amboy R.R. & T. Co., 52 Barb. 72.

11. Notice to restrict the liability of carriers is not sufficient to bind the owner of goods carried, if only given without his knowledge or assent, to one who was directed by him to deliver the same to the carriers. — Fillebrown v. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 55 Me. 462.

See ACT OF GOD; CONSIGNOR; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1; DAMAGES, 1; LEGAL TENDER, 4; PERIL OF THE SEA; RAILROAD, 2-5.

CASE. See ACTION; CARRIER, 3; CORPORATION, 4; SEDUCTION.

CASES FOLLOWED.-See TAX, 1.
CASHIER.-See BANK; CHECK, 4, 5.

CHARITY.

1. The statute 43 Eliz. ch. 4, as to charitable trusts is not part of the law of Maryland.

- State v. Warren, 28 Md. 338.

2. Bequests to a school district to be used for school purposes only, and to the poor of M. county, are good charities.

The doctrine of cy pres obtains in Illinois. — Houzer v. Harris, 42 Ill. 425. 3. A power of appointment to such "benevolent, religious, or charitable institutions" as the donee of the power may think proper, is void for indefiniteness. — Norris v. Thomson, 4 C. E. Green, 307.

4. A Roman Catholic testator left a fund in trust to establish an orphan asylum to be called "St. James' Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum," and a hospital. The institution, until incorporated, was to be managed by his trustees or the survivor of them, and one of them was a Protestant. Held, that the charity being an eleemosynary one, the religious belief of the founder was not to be considered, and the name did not by itself show an intent to make the asylum denominational, or to subject it to the control of the Catholic Church. (Six judges dissenting.) — Attorney General v. Moore, 4 C. E. Green, 503; s.c. 3 C. E. Green, 256; 3 Am. Law Rev. 487, 488.

CHECK.

1. The holder of a check did not present it for payment until twenty-five days after. it was drawn, the drawees having failed meantime. The deposit with the drawee was made in funds which had become depreciated, but which did not appear to have been so at the time of the deposit. In a suit on the check as a bill of exchange: Held, that the drawer was discharged. — Willetts v. Paine, 43 Ill. 433.

2. The mere fact that one in regular course of business in good faith and for value, receives a check ten days after it was drawn and dated, does not subject him to the equities between the original parties to the same. Ames v. Merriam, 98 Mass. 294.

3. One who takes a check which by its date appears to have been outstanding for two years and a half, and which has "Mem" written on its face, must bear the loss arising from his taking it without inquiry. — Skillman v. Titus, 3 Vroom, 96.

4. The certifying of a check as "good" transfers the sum drawn for to the holder, and imports a promise to pay the same to him on demand. But the drawee cannot set off a claim on the holder against the amount so transferred, and the maker of the check is not discharged. - Brown v. Leckie, 43 Ill. 497; Bickford v. First National Bank of Chicago, 42 Ill. 238; Rounds v. Smith, ib. 245.

5. A check dated Jan. 10, 1866, was certified by the assistant cashier of defendant bank, and was indorsed to W. Dec. 1, 1865. March 7, 1866, the check was deposited with plaintiffs, who credited W. with the amount on their books. The drawer of the check had not funds with defendants to meet it either when it was certified or when it was presented. Held, that W., as he took a post-dated check, had notice that the cashier was exceeding his authority in certifying it, and that plaintiffs took subject to the equities against W. — Clarke National Bank v. Bank of Albion, 52 Barb. 592.

See BANK.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »