New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-11-15
THE COCRTy.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

y
! THREE IMPORTANT DECISIONS THE LAW or GUAR
! ANTY-sUTTs AGAINST A EECETyEB--LIABILID
or RAILROADS FOR GOODS DEsrRoTED BY FIRE.
WASHINGTON, Nov. IA decision was rem
dered IN The Supreme Court OF the United states today
in the ease Davis Patrick agt Wells, Fargo Co,
which settles points in the law Of guaranty that
have hitherto been subjects Of controversy This Court
holds that where A. In consideration OF 81 10 him ga
hand paid" executes and 10 be delivered to
unconditional agreement to guarantee the payment up
to specified amount Of O. present and future indebt
cdncss the said b. II Is not necessary for to formally
notify the aTantor his acceptance OF the terms OF
the agreement to keep the latter informed from
10 time o. the amount Of c. huctuaing Indebtedness In
the opinion OF this Cont the written instrument in qHcs
on Is completed contract by virtue of the ackr0Wl
cdgcmcn which n contains " the receipt by The clarau
Of valuable consideration for tn service 10 DE
dcrrd. The payment to the guaranor ol the stipulated
consideration - sufficient notice to him that his agree
mcni accepted ana nc Is by the Instrument itself es-
topped now from denying that such nsdcration
received With regard 10 the obi cation OF the guaran
tee 10 notify to e guarantor the default Of the debtor,
the Court holds that where the guarutOr suffers loss
damage by Of the failure OF the to give
him such uothcailO ne Is to tha extent released but
both the aches Of the plaintiff and tne loss Of the de-
PENDANT must concur Ia constitute defence. The udg
mcut of the Court below, In favor Of Wells, Fargo Co..
is affirmed
An important decision was also rendered by the Court
In the Of Francis H. Barton agt John s. Barbour
receiver. involving the liability Of receiver TO
suit in the Of another the one
court appointed him II held thai where toe
o state has railroad other property in rs pos
sc.nu for admins ration rs trust assets and has an
pointed receiver aid 10 I'm the performance of tsdty
bv carving the business which the property
ai,n,,d cont Of another state has no Jurisdiction 10
entertain suit against such receiver for
ton arising IN the state In which he appointed, and
I'M " ich the property in his possr-sou IL s,ta 3D. based
on his negligence nr that of nj. ryn- u the perform
of their duty IN respect al such property or FOR any
In carrying such business The judgment Of the
prone Court Of the District Of Columbia 10 affirmed
The Court also rendered an opinion OF great Importance
10 aJl railroads ght lines ana shippers goods
In the case ofthc st. Louis Insurance Company agt the
ST. Louis. Yaadaa, Tcrre Haute and Indianapolis Rail
road Company This suit brought nv the ~. Louis
Insurance Company, ASSIGNEE ~ Mcir & Co. TO
cover the N"lc d" rrl cotton -hllpti nj ~ Louis ~
60 ard a as freight line known - the E.ic and Pacific
the Nandaia Line Theme, "Nertlc hnc-9 TIE Its"urG.
Cincinnati and 81 Ions. the Atlantic and Great Western
and re frr Railroad Companies u was burned az Jcr
-cy ty wall, 'u 'Hltool =" thr ~, L,."N. inc an,
d41l Linz 800 MT execute ' ~ hint, h1t waFhlurd
c freight from ST. Louis 10 Ind annapolis, and there de
iy rcd u ~ good ordgr 10 the fl,snnrF lnrtnaji ana
- Louis Company The main question prr-eni In tie
the safety of The c"ftuu amer delivering 10 90 another
carrier 1hi, Court docs not decide vhothrrthe Van
and r'cifc r. .u,fc, o Hcir & Co. but assume. Tor the
purposes of 10, ircuu thrt Nrrr 500. NOT bound
m,"t nfipr r.r,n nrt tu,n nol- that inrr, divis-
amour Themselves on the ha-, 81 distance only each
,1n o 1,.'S ,', e., A. E ,, ' IN .t - ~ ~,
these roads partnrr- Co bind any of them a. by
a,rgi contract transport the cotton htoud lS
line Tho Fri. nuI P.,H" Despatch i- liable irtrr its
contracts DI thH-tt"y the cotton ON tho ole routr,
bui railroad D., responsible only Tor Its own ursIi
rruo.. The Judgment Oi the Circuit Court is affirmed
with costs.
The other decisions rendered by the Court to day were
follows:
No. C--Flr6ulud Nc'caf 1t o. AIT W Williams.
Deere, affirmed Win costs
40. G9.W VI Uam 2. Potter act Jaruic I. Graves. al
m.u.trl'rH, etc in diurnt affirmed with costs and In
trf,rt
Su 5-WilliHm Dudley assignee. etc. ugt Jane G. Ea5-
ton Decree affirmed with cost.
80 5-Ei.lIfd Ju.,, 90 ul. NJ. Beverly Randolph 81
nI .Iui .mrut reversed with costs and rum4ndcd
Tor new tIiI.
No 7'-Dlyis levy agt. Ferdinand DIuE,L Judg-
mcut atI rIucd with costs and interest.
No TT-Hcury IT, ko"u O. ti. at. ih" IhuulV Mutual
Lie Insurance tuuUuuN- Judgment affirmed with costs
and interest Adjourned.