New-York tribune., 1867-08-31
corpT OF APPEALS.

COURT OF APPEALS.
The North Insurance Company appellants 'gt haiSA '"
This action was brought 70 toNS, recover the
amount OF two promissory nOIes agtst ijd ~ ~
~ consideration OF the notes was illegal conssg o &
balance claimed to be due on two IanS one panf had
already issued policy OF insurance on Ie tbe ris
amount OF s. ooo and were nhwG owT cU loan It was
agreed between the parties 10 susehu an aSt 1 %
OF llsk non bottomry during the continuance Of
tbe loan and the loan was made ace9r1ngy' ,,, that
tn ctc Court held that the transaction was eg; that
Inc Inc on insurance company, havnga right to loan
MON bottomry had insured the ycsse aiready n sum
os reat as it was wiling to risk might neyeteieST sT
te sIspend the necessary amount OF rsk III 'o P0''
aud supply ITS place Oy Sn',5 5Gaa s ss S T. yrrU' Trse
Action brought for an alleged breach OIL war ar
ranty on sale Of bank stock Delendants s stock
a. id RANK and assigned the same, leaving blank oy
The name Of The purchaser Nothing ~s oe eu When the
and Cashier negotiated the sale OF He SsoTn, &
thcy made certon stqtcnentS ara amnnt 70
Pra7v OF the value Of the stock, aud for DreroH -
which this action was er9ngm' l o e m @ Warranty
or of any knowledge on his part that any warmly n"u
been gonrt held that an agent employed to sell without
express power TO warrant cannot give waIfany i Th
shall bind hs principal nne,s the onS All HAT no sTch Gus
tom exists In connection with the sale OF Dak StOS
and t the PeS3 &c 3 1sTTh That az there I had been no a5se
ua % Of the unauthorized act Of the agent by
his prncpaI and consequently that the plantiit cou
judgment reversed antnew trial ordered
jerome A. Osborn sgt Giles @ Koho'ns i anu ''''NS
Action ON q. note made by defendants pay
olIc 10 Burrll Rice aud Jane Rice, or bearer. -, -
UeGuSe-Tht the note was made without egai So.-
sdianp and was obtained by eXtortlon ara iiauu W
nrocnre he liberation OF Sterling Robbins VINO was n1, m
duress a a prisoner upon charge Ol lcIoy ~
10 noyers of the nOie also that the clan WnlCh "1
made fbe nreteXt for such cXtOrtiOn hau Dco ptioS
sttcd fof. That plaintiff combined with the payers III
tbe wrong etc The Court held that Wherc paaii
il arrested without just cause, and from nCtNeS m
the law does sanction, any contract lhIo NIuch ~
may enter with tho authors OF the wrong 10 procure ~
cton from arrest Is imputed to Illegal duress ana X
corrupt in its OTIglH, ana thO Nlont'WcI ''i
akc no benefit theTcrOm; that the party eNaclhS secur
v fr0n one he wrOngfuy Restraints can derive no hu
from the fact that the claim he seeks to enforce Is JUST
hat i'm such case IL the sLrc duty Of the Court TO con-
denim the contract, and TO remit the pales W '' 0s
| lnal rights ,...,. t a.
Oswcgo Starch Company and TO recover back e ltiVo
maid Tor the same Is alleged that the defendant W
drtook to purchaSe stock in that company rs hc hF
~ tLo pIatf and that he frauduently trauSitIIcu m
own stock 10 the plaintiff at price greatly ao1Ee y.
value, under the pretense tlat ~ was 'lc M vi ~ -
rortrs which he had purchased for planti ana uIoi
discovery of the nudb the plaintiff the defendant Ie
! fused TO resclnd the sale &, .
The Court held that the transaction could not be sus
tqiurd that tho defendant stood m IcAOn 10 MS piI
/ cipal which disabled him from concluding contra
| with himself without the knowledge of his plhcilhu
whom he assumed to represent that he would not nc per
uItted 10 occupy the relation Of selcS ana purchases
that when one standing In the relation oi agent 10 n
urICipal attempts 90 buy Ns agent Ohu sen us o"hci '
nucinai ON discovery ~ the breach of confidence, may
demand that such contract DC IescI1"'u anu ii' "'
| Judgment Of the General Term was affirmed