« PreviousContinue »
COUPON. Coupons in this form : “Coupon, City of Wheeling, guaranteed by the State of Virginia. Duncan, Sherman, & Co., of New York, will pay to the bearer thirty dollars, the half-yearly interest on Wheeling bond 269, due 1 January, 1867. $30. M. Nelson, Mayor;" after having been taken up by the State, were stolen from it, and came to plaintiff's hand bona fide and for value after the instalments of interest for which they were given had been due for from six months to two years and a half. Held, that he could not recover, and the coupons were ordered to be given up. Rives, J., dissenting, on the ground that the coupon was a check, with no time appointed for its presentment, and not overdue when taken by plaintiff; the date specified the interest for which it was given, not a day for presentment. — Arents v. Commonwealth, 18 Grat. 750. See MORTGAGE, 2.
COVENANT. 1. A covenant between A. and B., owners of adjoining premises, that A. may build a party wall, half on each lot, and that when B. uses the same he shall pay A. half its cost, is personal, and does not pass with the land to A.'s grantee. — Block v. Isham, 28 Ind. 37.
2. A purchaser of a mill, after a breach of covenant by a railroad company with its former owner to dig a new channel, &c., for the mill stream, cannot sue on said covenant. — Junction R.R. Co. v. Sayers, 28 Ind. 318.
3. Defendant made a valid agreement with three partners not to do business in a certain place. Two of said partners sold out to the third, and left said place. Said third re-sold the business to defendant, and released said agreement. Held, that the other two partners could not sue for a breach, as the agreement was incident only to the business. — Gompers v. Rochester, 56 Penn. St. 194.
See WARRANTY. CRIMINAL LAW.- See CONSPIRACY; FORGERY; LARCENY; LOTTERY; SECES
SION; War, 2; WITNESS.
DAMAGES. 1. In assessing damages caused by the construction of a railroad, the loss of custom to a mill, owing to the frequent passing of trains which rendered it unsafe to drive horses to the same, may be considered. — Western Pennsylvania R.R. Co. v. Hill, 56 Penn. St. 460.
2. In assumpsit for failure to deliver goods sold according to agreement, the measure of damages is similar to that in trover; viz., the value of the goods at the time when they should have been delivered, with interest. — Bickell v. Colton, 41 Miss. 368; Orange & Alexandria R.R. Co. v. Fulvey, 17 Grat. 366.
3. The measure of damages in California for the wrongful taking and conversion of property of fluctuating value, is the highest market value at the place, at or after the time of conversion ; with interest from the time of estimating the same as a matter of legal right. — Hamer v. Hathaway, 33 Cal. 117.
Contra, Bickell v. Colton, 41 Miss. 368. See Greer v. Powell, 1 Bush, 489. See Bond; CARRIER, 1, 4; MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; RAILROAD, 7.
DELIVERY. — See SALE; WAREHOUSEMAN. DEMAND. — See Assumpsit, 1; CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT ; GUARANTY.
DEPOSIT. - See GIFT.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY. A person not licensed to practise law by any court, is eligible to the office of District Attorney in California. — People v. Dorsey, 32 Cal. 296.
DOMICILE. One may be a resident in one State, and taxed as such, when his domicile is in another. - Board of Supervisors v. Davenport, 40 Ill. 197.
DRAFT. - See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1.
ECCLESIASTICAL Law. A synod of the Presbyterian Church, in the exercise of original jurisdiction, ordered the election of additional ruling elders in a church. They were elected, and the act was confirmed by a declaration of the general assembly. Held, that the election was void. The acts both of the synod and the general assembly were contrary to the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church. The civil courts have. jurisdiction in such a case when civil rights are infringed (WILLIAMS, J., dissenting). – Watson v. Avery, 2 Bush, 332.
EMANCIPATION. — See SLAVERY, 1, 2. EMINENT DOMAIN. — See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; STATE, 4; MUNICIPAL COR
EQUITABLE CONVERSION. The surplus of the proceeds of lands of a decedent in New Jersey, sold by order of court for the payment of his debts, over the amount needed for that purpose, as also the proceeds of lands sold on proceedings for partition, because incapable of partition, will pass as real estate to the heirs of an infant entitled to the same.
Otherwise, of proceeds of such a sale of lands in another State, by the laws of which they are to be considered personal estate, although such proceeds are in the hands of a guardian appointed in New Jersey, and the infant is a resident there. — Oberly v. Lerch, 3 C. E. Green, 346, 575. EQUITY. — See EQUITABLE CONVERSION; LETTERS ; MortgaGE; RAILROAD, 6; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE; Trust FUND; VENDOR AND PURCHASER.
ESTOPPEL. A., alleging himself to be the owner of a patent-right for a machine, license B. to make and sell said machine within a certain territory, in consideration of which B. agreed to pay A. a royalty on each machine so made and sold. After a large number of machines had been made, and a part of the same sold, without disturbance by third parties, and time enough to test the machine had elapsed, a compromise was made by which B. gave his note to A. for the amount due on the machines sold, and the royalty on those on hand or thereafter to be made was considerably reduced. A. sued B. on the note. Held, that defendant was estopped to set up want of consideration, on the ground of want of novelty or inutility of said machine. — Davis v. Gray, 17 Ohio St. 330.
See STAMP, 2.
EVIDENCE. — See CAPTURE; CARRIER, 2, 4; CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 5; Es-
EXECUTION. - See EXEMPTION; RAILROAD, 6.
EXEMPTION. 1. A widow claimed such personal property of her husband as had been exempted from liability for debts by a late law. The administrator resisted her on the ground that the other personal property was not sufficient to pay debts contracted before said law was passed. Held, that the widow was entitled. Said law was constitutional as to contracts existing at the time of its passage. — Stephenson v. Osborne, 41 Miss. 119.
2. Otherwise, of a law prohibiting a sequestration of the goods, tolls, &c., of a particular corporation. — Penrose v. Erie Canal Co., 56 Penn. St. 46.
3. A threshing-machine used by a farmer to thresh his own grain and that of others for hire, is not exempt from execution as one of “the proper tools or implements of a farmer.” — Meyer v. Meyer, 23 Iowa, 359.
FERRY. - See CARRIER, 1; MISSISSIPPI RIVER.
FORGERY. “M., C., & Co., pay Binam $5.75. J. L. C.," does not on its face, unaided by innuendo or the averment of extrinsic facts, import an order for the payment of money, so as to sustain an indictment for forging the same. - Bynam v. State, 17 Ohio St. 142. FRANCHISE. — See MISSISSIPPI RIVER; RAILROAD, 1-3.
GENERAL AVERAGE. The owner of a vessel is not entitled to contribution in general average for damage sustained or expense incurred by reason of the perils of the seas, if the vessel was unseaworthy when she left port, although from a latent defect. – Wilson v. Cross, 33 Cal. 60.
GIFT. A. deposited $220 of her own money in the defendant Savings Bank in the name of B., and took a deposit book in which was the following entry by the treasurer of said bank : “ 1864, No. 530; B. deposited $220.” The treasurer at the time of the deposit, also entered in the bank books that B. deposited $220. A. retained said deposit book until her death, and it was found among her papers; and it did not appear that B. knew of the gift during her life, she having died before A. Held, that this was a perfected gift; that the deposit book was not negotiable, and that the bank was not bound to pay said deposit to A.'s administrator upon the order of B.'s father, who was B.'s sole heir; and that the said money belonged to B.'s estate independent of her husband, he pot have ing reduced the claim to possession during her life. — Howard v. Windham County Savings Bank, 40 Vt. 597.
GOVERNOR. — See MANDAMUS.
GRANT. — See WHARF.
GUARANTY. “I assign the within to K., for value received, and bind myself to paying it promptly after maturity, if not paid by the drawers at maturity,” indorsed upon a note is a guaranty, and demand and notice are not necessary to fix the guarantor's liability on failure of the makers to pay at maturity. - Baker v. Kelly, 41 Miss. 696. So in case of a lease. — Voltz v. Harris, 40 DI. 155.
GUARDIAN. — See CONFEDERATE MONEY, 3.
HUSBAND AND WIFE. A wife who without cause, and against her husband's will, refuses to live with him, cannot bind him for necessaries to a third party who knows that she is not living with her husband, and who sells to her without further inquiry. — Brown v. Mudgett, 40 Vt. 68.
See Gift; LETTERS; SLAVERY, 3.
ERY, 2; USURY; War, 4, 5.
INFANT.-See WILL, 1.
INNKEEPER. 1. An innkeeper posted this notice in his inn : “Deposit your money and valuables in the safe at the office;” and a guest accordingly did so deposit a very large amount of gold dust and coin, which was received and placed in the safe without objection. The clerk was knocked down, and, the combination lock not being turned, the safe was robbed. Held, that the innkeeper was liable to the full amount of the deposit; judgment payable in gold. — Pinkerton v. Woodward, 33 Cal. 557.
2. Ninety dollars kept by a guest at an inn for daily use, were stolen from his room. Held, that the innkeeper was liable. — Weisenger v. Taylor, 1 Bush, 275.
INSANITY. - See BOND.
INSURANCE. 1. The only memorandum of insurance on an unfinished vessel was on the “ marine docket” of a marine and fire insurance company, as follows: “No. 6570; 1865, June 23d. William H. Churchill, for account, &c., (on) steamboat River Queen, $6,000. Total insurance inclusive, $12,000, against fire only, while finishing at the wharf at Pittsburgh, Pa. (Rate) one-half per cent per mo. from June 23d, 1865.” No policy was issued. Held, that the terms of the insurance must be taken to be the usual terms of the policies issued by said company.
The marine and fire policies usually issued differed in their terms. Held, VOL. 111.
that this was an insurance against fire. — Eureka Ins. Co. v. Robinson, 56 Penn. St. 226.
See American Horse Ins. Co. v. Patterson, 28 Ind. 17.
2. A cargo of coffee to be shipped from Rio to Richmond, or some other Atlantic port of the United States, on the Sally Magee (see 3 Wallace, 451), was insured Dec. 24, 1860, at the usual rates. The enumeration of risks was in the English form. The cargo was shipped May 10, 1861, and was captured on the high seas by a United States vessel, June 27, and condemned as enemy property. Held, that the insurers were liable. Capture, though not enumerated, was one of the risks, and the insurance was legal. — The Merchant's Insurance Co. v. Edmond, 17 Grat. 138.
3. A fire insurance policy contained a provision that, “ if the property" insured “shall be sold,” the policy should be void. When said policy was made, said property was under a mortgage, and said policy was assigned to the mortgagee with the assent of the insurers. Held, that a delivery of said property to the mortgagee did not avoid the policy.
A further provision avoided the policy if another insurance should be made on the property thereby insured, not consented to in writing thereon. A stock of goods insured was removed to another place, and merged in a stock insured in other companies by policies covering accruing stocks. Held, that the first-mentioned policy was avoided as to said removed goods. — Washington Ins. Co. v. Hayes, 17 Ohio St. 432. See CONFLICT OF LAWS; War, 4.
INTERNAL REVENUE. — See STAMP; Tax.
INTERPLEADER. After judgments recovered against a debtor by two different claimants of the debt, it is too late for him to bring a bill of interpleader (Alley, P., and RoBERTSON, J., dissenting). — Haseltine v. Brickey, 16 Grat. 116.
INTOXICATING LIQUORS. — See COLLEGE.
Joint TORTFEASORS. A., one of two joint owners, put a butting ram into his own pasture without properly restraining it, and it butted and injured the plaintiff. B., the other joint owner, knew the brute's propensity, but did not know that A. had disposed of it as above. Held, that B. was liable. — Oakes v. Spaulding, 40 Vt. 347. JUDGMENT. — See INTERPLEADER; SUBROGATION.
JUDICIARY ACT. Dec. 6, 1864, a judgment was announced and minuted in the records by the clerk. A petition for rehearing was filed in due time, which was denied Jan. 21, 1865. Jan. 27, a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States was sued out. Held, that said writ was sued out within ten days “after rendering the judgment,” within Judiciary Act, $ 22. — MaGraw v. MacGlynn, 32 Cal. 257. JURISDICTION. — See ADMIRALTY; ECCLESIASTICAL Law.
LACHES. — See INTERPLEADER,