, 1876-03-24
THE COURTS.
Trading Crooked Whisky for
Suburban Lots.
Decision Concerning an Alleged
Usurious Transaction.
Record OF Judgments md New Suits...Tllo
DnnrIllo Il Yinctnncs.
DECISIONS.

Dnnyll1o u Vinctnncs.
DECISIONS.
cnoorED WHISKY IN TILE aTATB cOCn1s.
An interesting question A. 10 tho character Of
warehouse receipt and tho Law In regard 10 tho
ealc Of personal property WIS decided yesterday
by Judge Fnrwel, tn tile caAo Of +. @. 8. Calhoun
"a, G. A. Day aud Nelson A. Sanborn. 1t mp
p.ars thnt In Docomber, 1878, Uay & sanbosn
owned 4 warehouse certificate for rs barrs's Of
whisky, and agreed TO exchange IL for iiyo lots in
Msy.ooa, belonging to complainant. The do
fanlants represented tho whisky "a "atraIglt,"
apd Calhoun, after having examined It, made tho
exchange and gave deod to the property. A
fow days afterwards tho whisky WAS 6eized
by tho Government for Noncompliance with
tho Teronue law. This was surprise
10 both parties. While tho proceedings wcro
pending. howovor. 1ro occurred Which de-
stroycd tho warehouse, md whisky In It. The
suit was continued, nevertheless, 10 ASCERTAIN
probably TO whom tho whisky would have bo-
logged had 1t not baen burned, and, finally, II
Was decdol that tho liquor lad bocn properly
seized. and It VIVA forfeited to tho Government,
nunc pro tune
Calhoun then dted bill aotting up that ho
had lost his whisky through the failure Of tho
Title Of DAY L sanhoru, aud asking that thoy
might bc dccrccd to tcoonyoy to him his land. or
tha.-!s.c t.,ioht f!avo lion on II for tho value.
esn,u M .as i: 0a thas tue hos on'1 so,d '0s T.
Calhoun was tho warehouse receipt;
tuat they had no knowledge as to tho whisky or
anything about It, and declined to tnko any ro-
Jponstbltity concerning II, and whether that
did not know, and therefore could not DO hold.
TIN Judge aail that tho difficulty rs 10 Tho
discrepancy betweon the complainant md do
ufrNtu1tf y rrIfc1, 0Rlhht1n cn,utt1nreI
meaning to convoy tho idan that tho tax on TIM
whisky had hoen paid. aud that the titlo was
good, wiiIc tho defendants uaod It In q moro re-
s,..cted eousv. T!iera was no evidence to show
purchaser. What did the deteudants sol'7 II
they cold nothing but an evidence OF q right to
take tho whisky, q paper With euarantee that
itwas mol forged. but without any obligation
part Of complainant TINT they had tight to
insist on tho delivery, then they would not bo
liable. But TINT waa not tho lava warehouse
receipt was only ovdopco Of tue title Of tho per-
enn holding 1t. It whB tho aat1o ~ though tAsy
had not had any warehouse receipt. They sold
him the whisky, and lo carted Il awny. There
vas an implied warranty that their titlo was
good, and, it having failcd, they should thero-
tho whlaky--lot tho ya!no OF tho laud.
but he had tho right to hnye a lien on the lana
for tho valuo Of tho w!iaky There waa no
fraud, aud therefore tho contract could not be
to the hands Of innocont parties, .ho complain
ants could not follow It, for they acquired
Eood title.
QuEartoN or usuny.
In tho case Of LanftAu ct 81. W. Hugh hIAhot
AL, Judge Farwell yesterday Ibid down tie
Law as 10 how the dofeugo Of usurY Should be 8et
up against ausurious caini. Il anpoaroa III
that case that iti January, 1871. Hugh htaher or
e ssasa sesuao aoss ot + s5oS no
but really to secure any indebtedness
duo at that time or subsequently to be Incurred.
Sometime afterward Mahec made note for
10000 and auo.hor for $4,000 to 9ilyorman to
ssools moneys borrowed, Or paat duo interest,
lna these not bolug pald the complaInan.s, Sill
yermRn's asstgueeB, flied q bill to forecloae tho
el50o0 tr,lst-dood. A(ahsr and his wito flied NJ
AnsRer setting ont TINT tho 8l0.o0Q Dote was
Gado partly 10 secure loan, partly In payments
Of arrears Of interest at uaurioua ratios. but
charging that only $4,000 had been received for
The sl0,00o noto given. In August. 1874 DIaher
borrowed a27, 800 from hiB wifo, and conveyed 10
u favor Of si!verman. subsequently, the rrus-
lss conveyed tho promises to her, but for
10 consideration beyond tho sa7, 800, and
.he thnn claimed that sho could plead
ssS5zg s,gz 'sasss oss Ss'fa on e. 20 'sssRs s
aoea thnn had been actually lent to hor husband
sith legal interoat. hiahcr in hls answer dill not
lctually plsad nsurT. but lett It 70 bo inferroa
trom lia allegations.
Judge Farwoll. III deciding the case. hold Tint
tplea Of uaury TO be eGoetu1l mlst DO specific
md direct, and stated iu distinct language.
There Wasuolaw against man paving all oxtfaor-
msVe tue taking Of illcsal Interest datenso to
aclaiu. he must say. 40 unoqu'vocally. Slaler
ln bis answer did not sot up ploa OF usury ape
ciacalay, and It could not be allowed.
Nor could Mrs. hfahpr plead It, for she Ind do
c'arcd in bill flied by hcr In August, 1879,
against J. ,. Lyon that ste took tho property