between the value of the product of the seed sold, it being put to the use
specified, and the value of the product that would have resulted had the
seed corresponded to the warranty. Ib.
By officer de facto.] See OFFICER, 335.
On foreign corporation.] See CORPORATION, 513.
See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 622, and note, 626.
Collision - liability of general owner.] The general owners of a vessel are not
liable for damages occasioned by a collision, happening through the fault
or negligence of the master of the vessel who controls her pro hac vice
and is sailing her "on shares.” Somes v. White (Me.), 718.
1 Presumption as to formalities of enactment.] Where an act has been duly
authenticated, and published as law by authority, the presumption is, that
all the constitutional solemnities and prerequisites necessary to its valid
enactment have been complied with; and this presumption exists until
the contrary is clearly made to appear. But when it can be made clearly
to appear that the particular bill, or section of a bill, although it may
have all the forms of authentication, has never in fact received the legisla
tive assent, the court is bound to look not only behind the printed statute
book, but beyond the forms of authentication of the bill as recorded in the
office of the Court of Appeals, and if the evidence be clear and entirely
satisfactory to the mind of the court, to decide accordingly. Berry v. The
Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co. (Md.), 69.
2. Parol evidence to impeach.] A statute having the proper forms of authenti-
cation cannot be impeached or questioned upon mere parol evidence. Ib.
8. Journals as evidence.] The journals of the two houses of the legislature,
in connection with other competent evidence upon the subject, may be ex-
amined as means of information to aid in arriving at a correct conclusion
as to what was the action of the legislature on any particular bill before
it. lb.
4. Statute good in part and void in part.] Statutes may be good in part and
void in part, and if the part that is valid be entirely distinct and severable
from that which is void, the former will be upheld and enforced as if
passed disconnected from the latter. Ib.
When contracts are void as not to be performed within a year.] An agreement
to render services, to be paid for after the employer's death, is not within
the statute as an agreement not to be performed within a year. Kens v.
Kent (N. Y.), 502.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
See LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, 131
Forged assignment of — right of purchaser.] Plaintiff took in the regular course
of business an assignment of stock in the defendant's insurance company
as security for a loan; presented the certificates to the company and re
ceived new certificates in lieu thereof. The assignment turned out to be a
forgery. Held, that the plaintiff and not the insurance company must
sustain the loss. Brown v. Howard Fire Ins. Co. (Md.), 90.
SUBROGATION.
See PAYMENT, 541
1. Note made on - estoppel of maker.] The maker of a promissory note bear-
ing date on a secular day is estopped, as against a bona fide holder for
value, to show that it was made on Sunday. Knox v. Clifford (Wis.), 28.
2. Travel on-injury from defective way.] A person walked about a mile, in
a town, on Sunday for exercise. Held, not a traveler in such a sense as to
bar her recovery against the town for injuries suffered during such walk
from a defect in the highway. O'Connell v. City of Lewiston (Me.), 673
Of land adjoining street.] See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 243.
1. On official bond — liability for moneys received in former term.]
officer, at the expiration of his term of office, made a report showing the
amount of money in his hands belonging to the town, and the report was
approved by the town. He was re elected, and gave a new bond with new
sureties. Held, that the latter were liable on his failure to account at the
end of his second term for the money so reported at the end of his first
term. Morley v. Town of Metamora (Ill.), 266.
8. On a statutory undertaking — discharge of liability on death of surety.] An
undertaking given upon appeal in an action read thus: "We,"
(naming sureties) "do hereby, pursuant to the statute in such case made
and provided, undertake, etc. Held, (1) that the obligation was joint and
not several; (2) that upon the death of one of the sureties his estate was
discharged from liability thereon both in law and in equity; and (3) that
the liability of the parties was not affected by the fact that the undertak.
ing was given in pursuance of a statute. Wood v. Fisk (N. Y.), 528.
8 When death of, does not discharge estate.] The obligors in a bond - - one of
whom was a surety only bound themselves, their "heirs, executors and
administrators." The surety died, and after his death a breach occurred.
Held, that his estate was liable. Royal Ins. Co. v. Davies (Iowa), 581
On bail bond.] See BAIL, 389.
When liability continues after discharge of principal.] See BANKRUPTCY, 157
Of principal by bail.] See BAIL, 389.
SURROGATE COURTS.
See COURTS, 555.
1. Assessment when not an incumbrance — breach of covenant.] By statute
assessors of taxes were required to assess lands and to deliver the com-
pleted assessment roll to the board of supervisors, who inserted the
amount of tax and delivered the roll with their warrant to the collector.
Defendant conveyed land with covenants against incumbrances, after it
had been so assessed by the assessors, but before the supervisors had ex-
tended the tax. Held, that the assessment did not constitute an incum-
brance. Barlow v. Saint Nicholas National Bank (N. Y.), 547.
3. Equity will not restrain collection of.] Equity has no jurisdiction to restrain
the collection of a personal tax, even if it be illegal; nor will it assume
jurisdiction to prevent a multiplicity of suits when the parties have, sev-
erally, remedies at law. Youngblood v. Sexton (Mich.), 655.
3. Recovering back after assessment has been set aside.] Where an assessment
has been set aside by a court, one who has paid it, though voluntarily
may recover it back. Mayor ads. Riker (N. J.), 386.
In violation of contract.] See CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 282.
On liquor traffic-tax is not “ license."] See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Rule as to uniformity.] See CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 12.
Error in market-report—presumption of negligence — damages.] Defendant,
a telegraph company, agreed to furnish plaintiff, a grain dealer at S., with
daily reports of the grain market at C., a point beyond defendant's line.
By reason of an error in the report, plaintiff was induced to purchase a
quantity of grain to fill a contract for future delivery. Held, (1) that in
the absence of evidence it would be presumed that the report was cor
rectly delivered to defendant at the point where its own line commenced;
(2) that in the absence of evidence it would be presumed that the error
occurred through defendant's negligence, and (3) that the measure of
damages was the difference between the actual purchase price and the
price as represented in the report. Turner v. Hawkeye Telegraph Co.
(Iowa), 605.
Purchase by one tenant at tax sale.] Where one tenant-in-common purchases
the land held by himself and his co-tenants, at a tax sale, he will be
regarded as holding the title in trust for his co-tenants unless they refuse
to contribute. Weare v. Van Meter (Iowa), 616.
Bale of standing.] See SALE, 119.
Liability of, for defects in ways.] See HIGHWAY, 18.
Liability to adjacent land-owner for non-repair of highway.] See HIGHWAY.
Iudividual names as trade-marks.] Every man has the absolute right to use
his own name in his own business, even though he may thereby interfere
with or injure the business of another person bearing the same name,
provided he does not resort to any artifice or contrivance for the purpose
of producing the impression that the establishments are identical, or do
any act calculated to mislead. Meneely v. Meneely (N. Y.), 489.
TRANSFER OF CAUSE.
See REMOVAL OF CAUSES.
TRAVELER.
See SUNDAY, 673.
Of county, relation of to county.] See COUNTY TREASURER, 688.
Of officer in execution of process — liability of suitor for. Attorney when client
not bound by acts of.] In an action of trespass for a wrongful seizure of
plaintiff's goods made by an officer under a warrant issued against the
goods of another at the suit of defendant, held, (1) that the defendant was
not liable for the wrongful acts of the officer, without proof that he had
authorized such acts; and (2) that the fact that defendant's attorney had
directed such wrongful acts would not render the defendant liable in the
Welsh v. Cochran
absence of proof of special authority in the attorney.
(N. Y.), 519.
By jury, right to compulsory reference.] See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 194.
1. Public charity.] A gift for the erection of a house for public worship, or for
the use of the ministry, may constitute a public charity if there is no definite
body for whose use the gift was intended, capable of receiving, holding
and using it in the manner intended. But where there is a body, or a
definite number of persons, ascertained or ascertainable, clearly pointed
out by the terms of the gift to receive, control and enjoy its benefits, it is
not a public charity, however carefully and exclusively the trust may be
restricted to religious uses alone. Old South Society v. Crocker (Mass.),
2. Sale of trust property — when will be authorized.] Land was conveyed to
certain persons named “and to such as they shall associate to themselves,
their heirs and snccessors forever, for the erection of a house for their
assembling themselves together publicly to worship God, as also the
erection of a dwelling-house for such minister or ministers as shall be by
them and their successors from time to time orderly and regularly ad-
mitted for the pastor or teacher to the said church or assembly," "and for
ao other intent, use or purpose whatsoever." Held, (1) not to constitute a
public charity; (2) that the land so conveyed might be sold by authority
of the legislature or of a court of equity; and (3) on an application for a
sale of the property, that the vote of a majority of the pew holders or
members of the society was not of itself a sufficient authority to enable
the corporation to make the sale, nor a sufficient reason to justify the
court in authorizing it to be made; but that those seeking the sale must
satisfy the court that it was reasonably required for the accommodation
of the society as a whole, and that the proposed change would not subject
the minority to an unreasonable sacrifice of interest or convenience, or in
any way work injustice to them. Ib.
See CORPORATION; NATIONAL BANK, 95.
Liability of surety on.] See SURETY, 528.
Who may set up defense of
here one purchases land subject to a mortgage
lien, and, as a part of tonsideration, agrees to pay the mortgage debt,
he cannot defend against the mortgage on the ground of usury. Cramer
v. Lepper (Ohio), 756, and note, 758.
Unlawful commitment to work-k See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 681.
Affidavits of jurors admissible to correct.
The foreman of a jury by mistake
announced a verdict different from that agreed to by the jury, and the
verdict was so recorded. Held, that
petent evidence to prove the mistake
514.
Indictment sustained after.] See INDICTME
ffidavits of the jurors were com
Dalrymple v. Williams (N. Y.)
Right of jury to give general or special.] See CoNSTITUTIONAL LAW, 633.
|