The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1881-04-14
RECENT IMPORTANT LEGAL DE
CISIONS.

| ClSlONS.
"A mistake of an arbitrator as Il
the legal effect of his award is no
ground upon which the award vii
be referred back. In Greenwood V
BrOwnhill, decided in the Court O
Appeal, at London, on the fourteenth
of February, James, l.. j., said: 81
would be dangerous example fw,
were to allow the arbitrator to i'm
peach his own award because hi
finds the effect of il is different from
what he thought it would be-"
When letter has been deposit
ed in the postOfiice properly adj
dressed, and the postage thereon
paid the law presumes that it reached
the person for whom 1t was in
tended. This presumption rests
upon the inference that the posta
officers have done their duty; and
evidence must be given by the per.
son to whom the letter was address.
ed to rebut the presumption that he
received it. The Supreme judicial
| Court of Massachusetts, in January
in Briggs V. Hervey, so decided this
qucStlOH'
"A mortgage given as security
for future advances is a valid mort
gage if the amount to be advanced
is specified. I'm Ketcham V. Wood
decided in The New York Supreme
Court, at Brooklyn, New York, re-
Gently, Judge Gilbert said that such
mortgage would be enforced, and
| that the record of it would be notice
| of lien to the extent of the speci-
| fled sum. But if the agreement for
| future advances is not referred to in
the mortgage, there is 10 lien Great
ed by the record for any advances
which may be subsequently made.
"A guarantyin an application for
life insurance policy that the appli-
cant "dOes not and will not practice
any bad or vicious habit that tends
TO the shortening of life" is in the
language of the trial Judge in charg-
ing the jury in Knight V. Mutual
Life Insurance Company of New
York, ga warranty that he would
not contract any perniciOus habit
obviously lending TO shorten life :
the guaranty is the same as n war
ranty; and if the jury believe that,
afterwards, the insured practised
the pernicious habit of intempcr-
ance, the policy became null and
void" The Supreme Court of Penn
sylyania, in January, in deciding
this case upon q writ of error.
agreed with the trial judge that the
guaranty in this case meant war
ranty, and affirmed the Judgment
recovered by the insurance COM
pany.
The liability of new firm for
the debts of the former partnership,
when all the members of the old firm
are also in the new firm, was con-
sidered by the Supreme Court of
Wisconsin, in FEBRUARY, in McLin-
den v. Wentworth. The court also
decided the question OF the respon-
sibility of firm for money lent to
one of its members to make up his
contribution to The capital. Judge
Lyon said: "The members of the
new firm will not be bound for the
debts of the old partnership unless
they have expressly agreed TO pay
them. And that partnership is
one member for himself, notwifli-I
standing that the money required
was put into the business of the
concern, ii the other members were
not in any way parties TO the max
ing of the debt"
"A prOmissory note becomes
contract as of the state in which il is
delivered. In Hiatt V. Griswold,
in the United States Cir
emit Court, district of Vermont. i'm
January, promissOry notes were pre-
pared in New York and delivered |
to the payee in Massachusetts, where
some of them were discounted at u |
per cent, and usury was set up as a |
defense upon the assumption that the |
was controlled by the laws
Of New York. ButJudge Wheelerll
in the opinion, said: at is apparent I
that the notes did not become oper-
alive untilthey were delivered TO |
md accepted by the payee. which
was done in Massachusetts,. The
contracts evidenced by them were
made in that jurisdiction. The in
crest reserved upon the discount of
he notes was taken there. AS to \
80 a