« PreviousContinue »
BOND. A false representation made by the principal to a surety on a bond before his signing the same, that a party whose name appeared thereon as surety had signed said bond, will discharge said surety. - Chamberlin v. Breuer, 3 Bush, 561. See AGREEMENT; BILLS AND NOTES, 1. BOUNDARY. - See Ohio RIVER; WATERCOURSE.
BOUNTY. The assignee, for a valuable consideration of the State bounty, made payable to a volunteer soldier or to his “authorized agent or attorney," is not barred of recovering the same by the desertion of such volunteer without having rendered any service. Mandamus awarded. (WEISL, J., dissenting.) – Erchelberger v. Sifford, 27 Md. 320.
BRIDGE. — See EMINENT DOMAIN.
BURDEN OF PROOF. In an action of contract against warehousemen to recover for a failure to de liver goods, which were received by them and not delivered upon demand, the burden of proof is on them to show that the goods have been lost without their fault (BIGELOW, C.J., dissenting). — Cass v. Boston & L. R.R. Co., 14 All. 448.
CARRIER. 1. A receipt given by an express company, and limiting their liability at the time of the delivery of goods to them for carriage, is not a defence in an action for the loss of such goods, unless knowledge of the contents of the receipt is brought home to the plaintiff. — Belger v. Dinsmore, 51 Barb. 69.
2. A parcel worth $675 was lost in transportation by Adams' Express Company. Their agent had given a printed receipt, containing a stipulation that in no event “ shall the holder hereof demand beyond the sum of fifty dollars, at which the article forwarded is hereby valued, unless otherwise herein expressed, or unless specially insured” by the company, “and so specified in this receipt." The value of the parcel was not made known to the company, and it was not specially insured. Held, that the company was not liable for more than $50 with interest. — Brehme v. Adams' Express Co., 25 Md. 328.
3. The Adams' Express Company gave receipts for goods, " value under fifty dollars, unless otherwise herein stated.” Held, that this did not exempt them from liability beyond that amount for goods lost by their want of ordinary care. Orndorff v. Adams' Express Co., 3 Bush, 194.
4. Boxes of poultry packed in ice were delivered by the plaintiffs to a carrier by steamboat, and his clerk signed a receipt for them, stating their contents. The boat was delayed by fog, no attention was paid to the poultry, and it was spoiled. Plaintiffs had long sent poultry by defendant's boat, who, when delayed, had often forwarded the same by rail. Held, that defendant was liable. — Peck v. Weeks, 34 Conn. 145.
5. A steamboat was loaded with troops. Afterwards the plaintiff, a civilian, took passage on board. While there he was injured by the discharge of a musket in a quarrel between two soldiers. The defendants averred that they took
2. The owner of land on one side of a street and a beach on the other, granted the beach, on condition that only low bathing houses should be built thereon. It did not appear that the grantor had in view a division of his land, and intended a restriction on each parcel for the benefit of the rest. The land was divided, however, and the plaintiff, who owned other land on the side farthest from the sea, bought the part of the beach opposite his said land. Defendant also owned parcels on each side of the street, and broke the condition. After bill brought to restrain defendant in so doing, the heir and devisee of the first grantor released the condition to him. Bill dismissed. — Jewell v. Lu, 14 All. 145.
See Bills and Notes, 3; FEE SIMPLE, 2; LANDLORD AND TENANT, 2. CONFLICT OF FEDERAL AND STAȚE AUTHORITY. - See CASES FOLLOWED, 2, 3; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1; JURISDICTION.
CONFLICT OF Laws. 1. An action at law cannot be maintained, in Massachusetts, to enforce the liability of a stockholder of a corporation established in another State for a debt of the corporation, if the laws of that State provide that the remedy against a stockholder upon a debt of the corporation in that State shall be by bill in chancery and not otherwise. — Erickson v. Nesmith, 15 Gray, 221; s.c. 4 All. 233; 46 N.H. 371; ante, 1 Am. Law Rev. 134; 3 ib. 555.
2. Insolvent debtors assigned all their property for the benefit of creditors, preferring some of them. The assignment was made in New York, and was larful there. Part of said property was land in Missouri, by the laws of which State such an assignment would have been void, and a New York creditor afterwards attached said land. Held, that as against him the prior assignment was valid. — Thurston v. Rosenfield, 42 Mo. 474.
See ConstITUTIONAL LAW, 6; INTEREST, 2.
CONSIDERATION. An oral promise to convey land, in accordance with which the land is subsequently conveyed, is a sufficient consideration for a promissory note. — Kratz v. Stocke, 42 Mo. 351.
See BILLS AND NOTES, 3; HUSBAND AND WIFE, 2.
CONSTITUTIONAL Law. 1. A State law allowing a personal action by the owner of one boat against the owner of another, in a case of collision through mutual fault, to recover a sum which will make the loss proportional to the value of such boats, is not in conflict with the Judiciary Act, § 9, and is constitutional. — Stewart v. Harry, 3 Bush, 438.
2. A State law requiring stamps of a certain value to be placed on all passenger tickets, and on all contracts for passage on vessels leaving the State, is unconstitutional. — People v. Raymond, 34 Cal. 492.
3. An act exempting lands of a certain corporation from taxation, the State having received no consideration for such exemption, is not a contract, and may be repealed, notwithstanding a provision in the act to the contrary. - Washington University v. Rowse, 42 Mo. 308; Home of the Friendless v. Rowose, ib. 361.