ACTS OF CONGRESS.
1874, Sect. 5485.
Sect. 5508.
1875, March 3.
1875, March 3.
See PENSION, 2.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 16.
See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 14.
See REMOVAL OF CAUSES, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 14.
ADMINISTRATOR. See EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.
ADMIRALTY. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 32. SET-OFF, 1.
1. Words in charter party, **now sailed, or about to sail, from Benizof,
with cargo for Philadelphia," require vessel to be already loaded. The Wick-
ham, 209.
2. Where certain claims for damages were rejected by District Court because
not included in original libel, held that Circuit Court, on appeal, could, in its
discretion, permit libellants to file supplemental and amended libel setting up
such claims. The Charles Morgan, 539.
3. Findings of board of local inspectors and documents connected therewith,
in proceeding under Rev. Stat., sect. 4450, for investigation of facts connected
with collision, so far as they had a bearing on conduct of licensed officers on
board the boats, are inadmissible in collision suit in admiralty when offered by
defendants, as tending to affect evidence offered by libellants to show that their
boat was in her proper position and had proper watches and lights set at the
time of collision. Id.
AGENT. See ATTACHMENT, 2. BANK, 2-4. CORPORATION, 26.
MORTGAGE, 22. PARTNERSHIP, 6, 7.
1. Consul signing note as consul is individually liable thereupon. De Bian v.
Gola, 777, and note.
2. Consular seal does not make the note a single bill. Id.
3. General agent of absent principal, having sole authority to manage his
business, will necessarily have authority to bring suits to collect debts, and
insurance in case of loss by tire. German Co. v. Grunert, 479.
4. Who receives money for his principal upon contract not criminal or im-
moral in its character, but contrary to public policy only, will be estopped from
setting up supposed illegality of such contract in defence to action by principal.
Taylor v. Pells, 742.
5. Where association of several railroad companies is formed for transaction
of business of common carrier, which is conducted by general managers of each,
as in case of partnership, so long as one of companies acts within general scope
of its powers, association will be bound, though particular company has exceeded
its authority, as tested by articles of association. E. and P. Despatch v. Cecil,
539.
6. Contract of railway company or association of such companies, made by
its usual agents, with shipper, to ship and carry large quantity of grain at five
cents per hundred less than customary rates, but that same should be billed and
freight paid at current rates, difference to be forthwith paid back to shipper, is
valid. Id.
7. In suit against such association on contract made by local agent of one of
companies, want of power in local agent to make the contract cannot be shown
by the articles of association.
8. To prove ratification of special contract made by station agent of railway
company in Illinois, which company was member of such association, it appear-
ing that general manager of same company approved such contract, plaintiff
offered in evidence three telegrams between said general manager and general
manager of association, showing that though first had exceeded his orders, latter
would protect him. Held, that telegrams were competent. Id.
9. Where general manager of such association had notice of special contract
at reduced rate made by agent of one of associated companies, and afterwards
furnishes cars and transports the grain, this is evidence from which ratification
of special contract may be inferred.
AMENDMENT. See ADMIRALTY, 2.
MECHANICS' LIEN, 2.
VOL. XXXIII.—102
FXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, 5.
Ad dumnum in declaration may be increased after verdict.
Earnshaw, 618.
ANIMALS. See MORTGAGE, 8. TORT, 1-4. TROVER, 4–6.
APPEALS. See ERRORS AND APPEALS.
1. Interest due on notes, when it is to be appropriated to income, may be
apportioned. Veazie v. Forsaith, 72.
2. Part of trust estate consisted of notes due from an insolvent estate, which
paid only part of amount due thereon. Held, that the loss was to be borne
pro rata by principal and interest, and amount received as interest for
period since date of the trust deed credited to income for years in which it was
earned. Id.
1. Even if language of submission be broad enough to cover claim, which it
clearly appears was not before arbitrators, award will not bar it. Lee v.
Dolan, 413.
2. Upon disagreement of the two arbitrators to whom controversy was sub-
mitted, and selection by them of third arbitrator under agreement of reference,
an award made by two of the arbitrators, without giving party against whom it
is rendered an opportunity of being heard, is void. Alexander v. Cunningham,
ARREST. See MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, 3-6.
ASSAULT. See CRIMINAL LAW, II. DAMAGES, 1, 2, 5.
ASSIGNMENT. See ATTACHMENT, 3, 4. ATTORNEY, 1. BILLS AND NOTES,
1, 10.
CONFLICT OF LAWS, 2. DEBTOR AND CREDITOR, 1. EXECUTION,
4. INSURANCE, 1, 11, 12, 19, 21. LIS PENDENS. REMOVAL OF CAUSES,
TORT, 5, 6.
1. Assignee of cause of action against railroad company arising under 43d
sect. Missouri Railroad Law, for double damages for killing of live stock, cannot
sue. Snyder v. Wabash, &c., Co., 209.
2. Future wages to be earned under present contract, indefinite as to time
and amount, may be assigned. Wade v. Bessey, 139.
3. Mortgages invalid against creditors of mortgagor are invalid against his
assignee for their benefit. Blandy v. Hall, 256, and note.
4. Lien of such mortgage is not preserved by clause in assignment excepting
from its operation all existing liens, and providing that such liens shall not be
affected thereby. Id.
5. Where statute requires entry, on chattel mortgage, of certain statement,
defect in such statement cannot be cured by conditions contained in mortgage
but not referred to in statement. ld.
6. Voluntary assignment for benefit of creditors of personal property, wher-
ever situated, passes it to assignee, at time of assignment, and will prevail over
subsequent lienors, provided it is not in conflict with some positive or customary
law of state where property may be located. Askew v. Bank, 399, and note.
See infra, 9.
Agent appointed by owner to sell coal lands upon commission, employed
another to aid him in effecting sale, promising to give latter, as was claimed,
half commissions. Sale having been effected, held, on review of evidence, there
was no equitable assignment of half of claim for commissions. Wyman v.
Snyder, 479.
8. Burden of proof is upon party who claims equitable assignment of one-
half of demand. Id.
9. Assignment for benefit of creditors executed in another state by debtor
domiciled there, which provides that certain creditors shall be paid in full before
others receive anything, and which is assented to by creditors holding claims
exceeding in amount value of assigned property, if valid by laws of that state,
will be upheld in Massachusetts as against attaching creditor of assignor domiciled
there. Train v. Kendall, 269. See ante, 6
10. Where party conveyed all his estate to trustee for sale and collection for
benefit of maker, trustee to be paid commission, and afterwards executed and
delivered to another person an assignment of bond and mortgage, and deliv-
ered bond and mortgage to assignee, and there was no proof that trustee ever
had possession of same, held, assignee had beneficial title. Wellington v. Heer-
mans, 139.
11. Unrecorded mortgage of personalty, which was made and received in good
faith, but under which no possession was taken, there being no collusion between
the parties nor design to give mortgagor fictitious credit, is good against assign-
ment for benefit of creditors, and the creditors can only claim under the
assignment. Wilson v. Esten, 413.
ASSUMPSIT. See ACTION, 11, 12. BAILMENT, 4. FORMER RECOVERY, 3.
FRAUDS, STATUTE OF, 11. OFFICER, 1, 2.
ATTACHMENT. Sec ASSIGNMENT, 9. HUSBAND AND WIFE, 15. MORT-
GAGE, 13.
1. "Residence" in attachment laws not equivalent to domicile. Difference
between the two. Krone v. Cooper, 269.
2. Property purchased by agent in his own name for undisclosed principal,
cannot be seized for debt of agent unless his creditor has been misled by appear-
ances or conduct of parties. Reed v. McIlroy, 618.
3. After debtor to defendant in attachment had been garnished by creditor
of defendant, he assigned his claim to another creditor, and notice of transfer
was given to debtor, when a second creditor in attachment against same defend-
ant garnished same debtor, and both suits proceeded to judgment at same
term. Funds in hands of garnishee were not sufficient to satisfy the two judg-
ments: Held, that the same should be apportioned between the two judgment
creditors to exclusion of assignee of debt. Reeve v. Smith, 743.
4. Chose in action is not assignable, at common law or under Illinois statute,
so as to vest legal title in assignee. Such assignee will take same subject to
all defences. Id.
5. GARNISHMENT, 625.
ATTORNEY. See EVIDENCE, 6. HUSBAND AND WIFE, 4, 5. INFANT, 7.
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, 8. PARTNERSHIP, 9. TRIAL, 6.
1. Not liable to subsequent assignee of mortgage for loss by reason of error
in certificate of title given to mortgagee. Dundee Mortgage Co. v. Hughes, 197,
and note.
2. Under statute authorizing assignment of counsel to indigent suitors, com-
plainant was assigned to assist defendant in suit to recover from insurance com-
pany amount of policy on her husband's life; he thereupon made agreement with
her for contingent fee of half amount recovered upon recovery of principal and
interest; held, that he was entitled to half of both. Hassell v. Van Houten,
3. Where two parties go together to attorney, and make statements to him
in presence of each other, such statements are not confidential communications.
Lynn v. Lyerle, 743.
4. Attorney who places his name under words "From the office of,"
of writ in favor of resident of another state, is liable, as endorser, for costs;
although in so doing, he violated rule of eourt. Morrill v. Lamson, 540.
5. Requires special authority to release judgment which has not been paid
or satisfied. Rounsaville v. Hazen, 269.
See COMMON CARRIER, 2, 4-6.
BAILMENT. See BANKRUPTCY. CONTRACT, 5.
has not ordered them, title
1. Where goods have been shipped to one who
does not pass to consignee by delivery to carrier. Ruhl v. Corner, 743.
2. If factor have claims for advances against his principal, and it is expressly
agreed that goods shall be shipped to factor to pay those advances, law makes
delivery to carrier delivery to factor. Id.
3. If factor receives consignment of goods for sale, while goods are still pro-
perty of consignor, lien of factor for previous advances will at once attach.
Id.
4. But if, while goods are in transitu and at his risk, consignor parts with
title, goods are no longer his, and lien of his factor will not attach, although
the goods actually come into his possession. In such a case where the trans-
feree of the title brought assumpsit instead of trover against the factor, he was
only allowed to recover for the money received from sale of goods. Id.
5. If mortgagor in possession of personal property stores it with third per-
son, who has no actual notice of the mortgage, which is recorded, the mortgagee
who afterwards is informed of the sharing, and expresses no disapproval, is not
liable to such person for storage charges, although the storage is necessary, but
may maintain action against him for its conversion. Storms v. Smith, 209.
See CHECK. CORPORATION, 26. NATIONAL BANK, 1.
1. Savings bank has no general lien upon surplus proceeds of stock, held as
collateral for payment of note. Brown v. New Bedford Inst., 209.
2. S. S. deposited sum of money in bank and received certificate of deposit
to the order of himself, or of E. S. (his wife). S. S. died. After his death
E. S. presented certificate and drew deposit. Held, that certificate did not
authorize payment of money to her after death of S. S., and that notice to
paying-teller of death of S. S. was notice to bank. Bank v. Wrightson, 540.
3. The bank filed bill in equity to enjoin prosecution of action at law against
it for the money deposited by S. S., brought by his executor; and to have
certificate reformed. Evidence failed to establish case for reformation of cer-
tificate; but it was developed in proof, that part of money drawn by E. S.,
went directly to payment of debts and funeral expenses of S. S. Held, that
court below committed no error in retaining bill, and under prayer for general
relief, allowing bank credit for the money that went directly to pay debts and
funeral charges of S. S., and for which executor had obtained credit in his
administration account. Id.
4. Pittsburgh bank sent to New York bank, for collection, eleven unac-
cepted drafts, dated at various times through period of over three months, and
payable four months after date. They were drawn on "Walter M. Conger,
Secretary Newark Tea Tray Co., Newark, N. J.," and were sent to New York
bank as drafts on company.
New York bank sent them, for collection, to
Newark bank, and, in its letters of transmission, recognised them as drafts on
company. Newark bank took acceptances from Conger, individually, on his
refusal to accept as secretary; but no notice of that fact was given to Pitts-
burgh bank until after maturity of first draft. At that time drawers and
endorser had become insolvent, drawers having been in good credit when
Pittsburgh bank discounted drafts. Held, that New York bank was liable to
Pittsburgh bank for such damages as it had sustained by negligence of Newark
bank. Bank v. Bank, 139.
BANKRUPTCY. See DEBTOR AND CREditor, 5.
Plaintiffs, as an accommodation to themselves, gave order to defendant
directing their debtor to pay him what was due them. He collected and used
the money by mingling it with his own; and in a few days afterwards was
adjudged a bankrupt. After his discharge, in action to recover money, court
below found that there was no evidence tending to show fraudulent intent.
Jury found that when order was given, plaintiffs told defendant "to keep and
use the money until they called for it." Held, that defendant's duty was that
of bailee without hire; that his use of the money was a conversion of it; that
debt was
"created by fraud," and not discharged. Hammond v. Noble, 619.
BASTARDY. See CRIMINAL LAW, III. DESCENT, 1.
BENEFICIAL SOCIETY. See INSURANCE, 18, 20.
BIBLE. See SCHOOL, 1, 2.
BILL OF LADING. See COMMON CArrier, 9.
G. Bros., common agents for sale of fertilizers of Z. & Sons and S., L., K.
& Co., shipped through mistake cotton received in payment of fertilizers of Z.
& Sons, to S., L., K. & Co., and the bills of lading were also delivered to
them; they sold the cotton and applied proceeds to payment of indebtedness of
G. Bros. to them. Subsequently, G. Bros. discovering their mistake, sent to
Z. & Sons an order on S., L., K. & Co. for the cotton. Demand having been
made and delivery refused, Held, that plaintiff's could maintain trover for
cotton, notwithstanding Maryland Act of 1876, ch. 262. Seal v. Zell, 796.
BILLS AND NOTES. AGENT, 1, 2. APPORTIONMENT. BANK, 4. CON-
TRACT, 4. DURESS, 2. EVIDENCE, 14, 15. EXECUTORS AND ADMINIS-
TRATORS, 2, 3. INTEREST. SET-OFF, 3. SUBROGATION, 1.
1. Though draft contains direction to charge sum drawn for to certain
account, it is still a negotiable bill of exchange, not payable out of a particular
fund, and does not constitute an assignment of the fund. Whitney v. Bank, 270.
2. Note containing clause, "the drawers and endorsers *** expressly
agree that the payee or his assignees may extend the time of payment thereof
from time to time, indefinitely, as he or they may see fit," is non-negotiable.
Glidden v. Henry, 716, and note.
3. Note in ordinary form, given by corporation, had on it when produced in
court a paper seal. No vote of corporation authorized the scal; note did not
purport to be under seal; scal was not corporate scal, and treasurer of corpo-
ration did not admit putting it on note. Held, that seal must be disregarded
mere excess." Mackay v. Church, 680.
4. Material alteration of note avoids same as to maker not consenting even
in hands of bona fide holder. Horn v. Bank, 72.
5. Substituting another payee for original payee, with knowledge and con-
sent of but one of two makers, releases the other.
6. Note not avoided as to maker by material alteration made in accordance
with, but some time after, agreement between maker and payee, and without
knowledge of maker, Wardlow v. List, 209.
7. Addition of signature of surety to promissory note, without consent of
maker, does not discharge him. Mersman v. Werges, 72.
8. Mortgage of husband and wife of her land, for accommodation of partner-
ship of which husband is member, and as security for note made by husband to
partner, and endorsed by partner for same purpose, and to which note partner,
before negotiating it, adds wife's name as maker, without consent or knowl-
edge of herself or her husband, is not thereby avoided as against one who, in
ignorance of alteration of note, lends money to partnership upon security of note
and mortgage. Id.
9. Where holder and owner of two notes endorsed in blank, one over-due
and other not, gave them to agent to receive payment only, and agent sold them
to innocent person without notice, held, that title only passed to note not due.
Towner v. McClelland, 140.
10. That assignee takes note secured by mortgage by assignment before ma-
turity, free from all defences at law, does not protect mortgage against equi-
table defences. Id.
BOND. See EQUITY, 13. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT, 1. OFFICER, 3. REMO-
VAL OF CAUSES, 6.
BRIDGES. See HIGHWAYS, STREETS, BRIDGES.
If purchaser, who was spoken to by brokers, had abandoned all idea of the
trade, and they had no influence in bringing it about, they would not be enti
tled to commissions, although purchaser may subsequently have bought from
owner. Doonan v. Ives, 341.
BURDEN OF PROOF. See ASSIGNMENT, 8. COMMON CARRIER, 7. HUS-
BAND AND WIFE, 17, 23, 24. NEGLIGENCE, 14.
BURGLARY. See CRIMINAL LAW, IV.
|