« PreviousContinue »
contracts made in relation to the traffic in slaves, void; as well those which were prior, as those subsequent to, the prohibition. By HYMAN, C.J., on the ground of the warranty. ILSLEY and LABAUVE, JJ., dissenting. Prior contracts were not made void. The warranty did not cover the case. — Wainright v. Bridges, 19 La. An. 234. See Austin v. Sandel, ib. 309; Addison v. Seltoon, ib. 352; Tate v. Fletcher, ib. 371; Gremillon v. Crousillac, ib. 377; Courtney y. Shelton, ib. 380; Posey v. Martingley, ib. 384; Halley v. Hoeffner, ib. 518. See Bass v. Freeman, 36 Ga. 435.
4. Defendant, who had hired a slave for several years of the plaintiff, was notified by the slave, in 1864, to pay her in plaintiff's stead. Defendant, who was living within the lines of a United States military post, where the slave had taken refuge, did so. Held, that the plaintiff could recover the hire of the slave notwithstanding (SHACKELFORD, J., dissenting). – Gholson v. Blackman, 4 Coldw. 580. See CARRIER, 5.
SOLDIER. — SEE CONVERSION, 2, 3.
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 1. A bill in equity, to compel specific performance of a bond, in common form, conditioned to convey to the complainant a parcel of land in the country upon payment of a stipulated price, on or before the first day of April, which alleges that the complainant, after the date of the bond, occupied and improved the land with the respondent's knowledge and consent, and tendered the price with interest on the twenty-fifth day of May next ensuing, is not demurrable upon the ground that time was of the essence of the contract. - Barnard v. Lee, 97 Mass. 92. See Gentry v. Rogers, 40 Ala. 442.
2. A party wall, creating a reciprocal easement for support between adjoining estates, is not such an encumbrance as will enable a purchaser who was not notified of its existence to resist specific performance. — Hendricks v. Stark, 37 NY. 106. See LEASE.
STAMP. 1. A petition to set aside the probate of a will, is not "process by which a suit is commenced” within the United States revenue laws, and does not require a stamp. – Sowell v. Sowell, 40 Ala. 243.
2. The Act of Congress, approved June 30, 1864, so far as it requires a stamp to be affixed to legal process issuing from the State courts, is unconstitutional.
By BYRD, J.: Said act does not apply to process issuing from State courts. — Smith v. Short, 40 Ala. 385.
3. The provision of U. S. St. of 1866, c. 184, § 9, that no document, not duly stamped, shall be used as evidence in any court until the requisite stamps shall have been affixed thereto, applies only to courts of the United States. — Carpenter v. Snelling, 97 Mass. 452; Lynch v. Morse, ib. 458.
4. The omission to affix a revenue stamp to an instrument requiring one, will not invalidate the instrument, unless such omission be with intent to defraud the government of the stamp duty. – Holyoke Machine Co. v. Franklin Paper Co.,
2. A note payable on demand, bearing date of a Sunday, but made and delivered on a previous day, is not within the Sunday laws. — Stacy v. Kemp, 97 Mass. 166.
3. An agreement was made, and a note, in pursuance of it, signed and indorsed on Sunday, but the note was not delivered till Wednesday. Held, that the note was valid, and not within the Sunday law. — Fritsch v. Heislen, 40 Mo. 555. See Dickinson v. Richmond, 97 Mass. 45.
4. F. bought fifteen mules of A. on Sunday, and gave his note for the price on that day. Two of the mules were not delivered until Monday. Held, that there could be no recovery on the note, but that A. could recover for the two mules delivered on Monday. — Foreman v. Ahl, 55 Pa. 325.
5. Gathering seaweed which will probably float away before Monday is not a work of necessity which may be done on Sunday. — Commonwealth v. Sampson, 97 Mass. 407.
6. Neither is finishing the hoeing of a field suffering for want of it, and which defendant's business would not allow him to attend to on Monday. — Commonwealth v. Josselyn, 97 Mass. 411. See CARRIER, 3; JEW; TIME.
SUPERVISOR. — See JUDICIAL Act.
SURETY. It is not a defence to an action against the surety of a bank teller alleged to have embezzled funds of the bank, that the cashier has not daily examined the settlements of the cash accounts, and otherwise superintended the affairs of the bank, and that the directors have not unexpectedly counted the teller's cash book and the cash, as required by the by-laws, although the embezzlement is alleged to be the result of this neglect. — State v. Atherton, 40 Mo. 209. See CONTRIBUTION, 2; LEGAL TENDER, 1.
TAX 1. A State cannot tax liquors imported from foreign countries, while in the hands of an importer and in the original casks. Otherwise, of liquors imported from other States of the Union (BYRD, J., dissenting as to this), or when foreign liquors leave the importer's hands, or when the original casks are broken.- Hinson v. Lott, 40 Ala. 123.
2. A commission merchant received goods from citizens in other States, sold the same in the form in which they were received, and accounted with his principals for the proceeds, less his commissions. In an action for a tax on the gross amount of such sales, held, that said tax was unconstitutional. — State v. Kennedy, 19 La. An. 397.
3. Certificates of indebtedness issued under the Act of Congress of March 1, 1862, are not exempt from State or municipal taxation. They are mere acknowledgments of pre-existing indebtedness, and are not instruments necessary for the carrying on of the Government.
Semble, said certificates are not covered by any of the exemption clauses in the acts of Congress. But if they are, such clauses are of no force, as the exemption, when it exists, is constitutional, not legislative. - People v. Hoffman, 37 N.Y. 9.