The Portland daily press., 1880-11-27

Supreme Judicial Court.
The following rescripts have been received in
cases argued before the law court:
ANDRoscoGGIN COUNTY.
Seth M. Carter, admir-, vs.. Manufacturers Nat
Bank Of Lewiston.
Rescript by Virgin, JAS general rule an exec
fects OF his testator-his title being fduciary and
not beneficial. So an executor may pledge the per-
sonal properly Of his testatOr for the general pur
poses OF the will. If the person receiving such
pledge has, at the time, knowledge notice, that
the executor Intends to nisapply the money, or is,
vate use, the pledge is not valid. An executor
pledged certain corporation stock, belonging to the
estate to the defendant bank to secure his note for
the affirmation of the executor that the money was
wanted for the settlement of the estate. Held
that the pledge is valid. Plaintiff non suit
Derry Mills VS.. Burke and Trustee.
Resc,lpt by Barrows. J.-It was decided by this
Court in Collins W.. Chase and trustee yet re-
ported, that creditor who has procured the deten
ton of anorers wages in the ha DIS Of his employ
by the first service If trustee process cannot by
making second service after the lapse of mouth
deprive the laborer of the exemption of some por-
tion OF his wages granted in K. 5. c. IS, 90. The
provision in r. s. chap. 81. s Is. authorizing a fur
Their servi upon trustees may have its full and fair.
nshses indsbtmant wsid have been securely held
by the first hzs L. -on specially exempt
ed from attachment by another section of the same
statute. Statute provisions, unl.ss absolutely
conflicting, are to be construed as to make
them operate harmoniousiy as q whole, giving each
its appropriate etfect-not using section to
evade or abrogate another. Exceptions sustained.
Trustee discharged.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
James Larrabee VS.. John S. Walker and M. P.
Frank, trustee. No rescript Trustee discharged
OXFORD COUNTY.
Margaret Williamson vs.. John Williamson.
Rescript by Symonds. 1.-THE plaintiff has clear
title under her husbands will to the twelve acre
lot except for the wrongful act of the defendant in
assigning his inter st therein as mortgage to q
stranger after he had once released it the plain
tf's devisor, covenanting to warrant and def 5nd
against all persons claiming under him. The de-
PENDANT cannot claim that his grantee, the plaintiffs
devsor, should have recorded his deed, in order to
guard against subsequent wrongful transfer of the
title to ,ther by the deien liant himself. He
cannot urge a defense which starts with his own
violation of the rights of his grantee under whose
will the plaintiff claims, and includes other ele-
ment except that and the results which flowed from
it. rhe doctrine Of estoppel applies. The defend
brought by Wiley against the present plaintiff and
was cited in under his covenant but refused to de-
fend. The costs Of that suit the expense to which
the plaintiff was subjected in defending it, with in
terest from the time of payment, and the value at
the date of eviction with interest therefrom of the
land which the plaintiff has lost by the Injurious
act of the defendant esuting in the breach of his
warranty TO defend, are the legal clements of dam
age Defendant defaulted. Damages assessed at
S473.27, with inter est from NAV list, 1873.