, 1877-02-10

OF before the Judgment wa. rendered. The Su-
prcmc Court also held that any matscr set nn
IN an answer, not responsive tn the petition. Is
not evidence A. :" s", matter tnn nnr ..~es est \
be rranirct. The decree of the lower court,
allowing tho mechanics liens Of tic scycrat
creditors, was, approved. G. 2. Roys for ap-
4 Abcrcromblo for the defendants in error.
JACOBS IS. TUHr1N.
The question rnfscd IN this case was as TO
whether, where trust11eed requires n falc to
he ,9ale tSr ea:h Trustee may waise payment ;nt
the bidder reasonable time to bring IN the
money. In this casc. Jacobs bid and rendered
tls ,ash: snd Y; A: Tnrp1, ltescIver o. the A.:
eIs eefs Insurance ,s cee eS tsqsss Nssna
S!a, and tho trustee allowed him until the
Mondny following the Saturday OF the sale to
n5uE h the n big Hd ths hssicF 4n ths hEher Et,n
The Receiver Of the Company, and the reprc-
amount upon the Indebtedness. anil not harc
offered clcek At all, Of paid the money, and
rat,fy!nE the sale to .TuFp!'. because In tint
casc he was required to have the money
at tho. sale, and tlIc Supreme Court docs
not decide the question raised by the
atillrl person may le allowed time to mako
good his bid as against caah bidder. The opin-
lon Of the lower court was therefore sustaine,l.
John t.. Bennett for appellant; Hitchcock 4
Dupce for appellee.
METz vs. LOWELL.
The only questions doet!cll In this case arc
whether nottca by tho sn>contractor was
served upon tho owner. Mctz,-it hcIng me-
cfanic'e lien cesc, within twonty daya fron tho
time Of tho delivery Of tho lumber for which tho
claim was brought, or at tho time thu money he
came due. upon this qucst!nn there was conflict
Of evidence, the Supreme Court tn.lIng that tho
notice was served In time. The other question
was whether there wns any Indebtedness frs,n,
afctz the owner, to the contractors, Lawrenro
It McLan, ut The tfrnc tue tM,tieu was served or
at tho time of lhs trial: anil thu Supreme Court
held that the weight Of the evidence sustained
tton nIso. Tho dccree was therefore affirmed
John |; Bennett for appellant; d. L. shorey
sniTt vs. WILMINGTON COAL. COMPANY.
The facta IN this caso ure that Charles T.
with ttho Wilmington Coal Company, whIci.
agreed to sell a quantity OF coal to br delivered
as follows: tO carloads o. s., at the rasc ot
ls79. to bo paid for every month, aud e car
loads at s3,15, At the rate Of three car-loatls
week, from April IL to Oct. Ii, 1871, payable a.
above. The las. amount Of sescnty-cight car;
By tic appellee, and the failure Of the appclice
70 secure the delivery nftcr Oct. Is, is79 wa
| alleged for cat.sn Of damage. lIrncu this suit
| 1t was also shown TINT tic money due tho np
eoa! due to 0st Il, l,I3 ha.i not been paid thn'
Smith died Oct. II, 1si.!, before any brearh 1T
this contract alleged, and that appellant brlov
xas appointed hls adminis!ratrlS, 1Mt ncver o..
aoes 4n o S1eF nj. q, saStrss S cauny gr coaE
appellee tho money duo on the contract for GOA
delivered up to OFT. 10, 1872. Smith WIS In DC
fault At the TING q his death. The Court pe
low Instructed sns 1'sy ~ matter o. law, tha
TIC timo OF tic execution Of the hiit, duly up
pointed by the County Cuur US ainins.ratrl,
Of Charles +. Smiths estate, and u must alst
appear that shc was directed and authorized b.
less tic jury should also think that iietc was
breach Of contract bcfore the death 0
Smith, , and upon 2o,,+ this H., rl,n branch q
jary that the ani.spute!t evidence showed tin
Smith died Oct. |, ls1!a,, and that there was III
breach Of contract before that time on the par
Of the defendant. The jury thcrcnpon, In ~
SGinF9 F hs @ sttnh nS M SisS rssS Gsa vSs
verse. the Judgment on tho ground that vt com
mon Law, whcn tho contract with tue dcceasc,
Is Of an executory nature, and the personal rer
rescntattyc ca, fairly and sufficiently execute al
tract. Tho statute was further fntcrprcie
from personal liability II be perlor,ne
tho contract under thls ort1cr of I'll
or.lcr os the County Court was not IL ncccsaEs;
but only rcatcd in the election Of tho admini
traitor; that at cutnmon Low, II tho aasnini
traitor had undertaken to perform the contrai
icbts contracted In performing the same, wller
as the cstatp would harc the benefit. But til
statute, II tho administrator obtained the bc,
Gilt Of 1t uulcr tho urler 0f the County Cour
| .1.1z
iIabIiity unJer lie contract. re,,dcTu@ tho esta
liable for icbts Anl damages incurred III at,le
taking TO perform the c0utract. Thu 1ccls!c
Of the lower Court ,Fas therefore reversed
favor Of the appellant. Palmer md Call for a
pcllcc, EldrIdgu aud Tourtelotte for appullan