Daily globe., 1881-11-17
LEGAL LOBE.

LEUAu LUhCs
Decisions of the United States Supreme
Court Rendered Monday-Number Of
Important Law Princip es Settled.
WASHINGTON, Nov. IA decision was
rendered in the supreme court of the United
States to-day in the case of Davis & Patrick
VS. Wells, Fargo & Co., which settles some
points in the law of guaranty that hitherto
have been subjects of controversy. The court
one dollar to him in hand oaid," executes and
causes to be delivered to "B" an uncon-
dltional agreement to guarantee the payment
up to a spec'fi fie amount, of "C's'' present
and future Indebtedness to said "B,' it is
not necessary for ''B' to formally
notify the .guarantier, Ca" of
or keep the latter informed from time to time
of the amount of "C's" fluctuatng indebted
ness. In the opinion of this conrt the written
instrument in question is not merely an offer
to do certain thing which to be valid must
he formally accepted by the party for whose
benefit it is made 1t, is on the contrary, a
completed contract by virtue of an acknowl-
edgement which 1t contains of the receipt by
the guarantor of valuable consideration for
services to be rendered. The payment to the
guarantor of stipulated consideration is
sufficient notice to him that the agree
ment is accepted and he is by the in
strument itself estopped now from deny
ing that such consideration was
received. The fact that the consideration is
strictly nominal makes no difference. A stip-
nlation in consideration of one dollar is just
the same as if the sum were larger. With
regard to the obligation of guarantee to notify
the guarantOr of the default of the debtor, the
court holds that where the guarantor suffers
loss or damage by reason of the failure of
guarantee to give him such notification he is
to that extent released, but both the loss of
the plaintiff and the loss of the defendant
must concur 10 constitute defense. Judg-
ment of the court below in favor of Wells,
Fargo Il Co. is affirmed.
An important decision was rendered by the
court in the case of Francis H. Barton VS..
John Barbour, receiver. The case involves the
liability of receiver to suit in courts of
another state than vhe one whose court ap-
pointed him. II is he d that where court of
one state has railroad, er other property, in
its possession, for administration, as trust
assets, and has appointed a receiver to aid it in
the ieformance Of it duty, by carrying on the
business to which the property is adapted, q
court of anO her state has no jurisdiction to
entertain suit against such receiver for a cause
of action arising in the state in which he was
appointed, and in which the property in his
III
or that of his servants in the performance Of
their duty in respect of such property, or for
any services performed or materials furnished
the receiver in carrying on such business.
Judgment of the supreme court of the Dis
trict of Columbia is affirmed.
The court also rendered an oplniou of great
inheritance to all ra lroads, fast freight lines
| and shippers Of goods in the case of the st.
Louis Insurance Company VS.. the ST. Louis,
Vando1io e. Torra Hauta Railroad ConDanv
This was suit brought by the St. Louis In
surance company, assignee of Meir & Co., to
recover the value of certain cotton shipped at
St. Louis in 1878 for Liverpool under agree
ments between Meir & Co. and the
fast freight line known as the
Erie & Pacific Dispatch. The cotton
was shipped by the Dispatch over tina Van
burg, Cincinnati & st. Louis, the Atlantic 65
Great Western and Erie railroad companies.
1t was burned at Jersey City while in custody
of the Erie railroad. The Vandalia line did
not execute bill of ladipg, but way billed the
freight from St. LOUIS to Indianapolis, and
| there delivered it in good order to the Pitts
burg d st. Louis company. The main ques-
tion presented bv the case is, "Whether the
Vandslia company was responsible for the
safety of the cotton after delivery to another
carrier?' Its liability was asserted by the
owners of the prOperty in question, upon the
ground that it and other railroads had an ar
rangement with the Erie & Pacific Dispatch,
and with each other, whereby a through
rate was established for the whole route. Such
an arrangement, it was commended, made the
railroad companies partners az Of threelpersons.
This court dos not decide whether the Wanda
liza line could or could not take the benefit of
a special exception in the bill of lading
given by the Erie & Pacific dispatch to Meir
& Co., but assumes for purposes of decision
that Meir & Co. are not bound under proof by
any special terms which the instrument con-
tanned. The court then holds that the mere
decision of,an established through rate by rail-
roads among themselves on the basis of DIS
tance only, each road bearing the expenses of
Of its own route and Of transportation over it,
is not of itself sufficient to make these roads
partners or to bind any one of them az by a
special contract to transport cotton by any
other line. he Erie & Pacific Dispatch is
liable under its contracts for the safety of the
cotton on the whole route, but each railroad
is responsible only for its own negligence.
Judgment of the circuit court is affirmed with
20