Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1882-02-01

lessee can not set up the disability of the
lessor to defeat the lease, or to be re-
ieved from it's covenants, in the opin-
ion of the supreme court of Illinois, in
Field VS.. Herrick, decided in November.
The recent possession of stolen prop
erty is not sufficient, of itself, to sup
port conviction for larceny; but, I'M
less a reasonable explanation of such
possession is made, conviction will be
supported, in the opinion of the Texas
court of appeals, in Williams VS.. the
State, decided in December.
A divorce under the statute Of another
state, when neither the husband nor the
wife have been domiciled as residents
therein, can have no effect in the state in
which they actually reside, in the
opinion of the supreme court of Ohio, in
Van Forsen VS.. state, in a prosecution
for bigamy, decided in November.
A written contract imports a consid-
Grafton, but failure of consideration
may be shown by the defendant in an ac-
ton on the contract, the burden of proof
being on him, as he must establish the
defense, in the opinion of the supreme
court of Iowa, in University of Des
MONIES VS.. Livingston, decided in De-
cember.
The mere desire of debtor that GER
tain creditor should succeed in an action
against him, and SO obtain preference
over his other creditors, is not sufficient
to establish the fact the debtor procured
or suffered his property to be taken on
legal process with the intent to prefer
that creditor, in the opinion Of the United
States circuit court, at Buffalo. n. Y, in
Brown VS.. Jefferson County Bank, de-
cided in June. -
Where sales are made indifferent times
it is necessary, in order to consolidate
the prices into one demand or cause of
action, that there is an express agreement
to that effect, Or the circumstances must
be such as to raise the presumption that
the parties so intended; form the absence
of either circumstance, distinct contracts
of sale constitute distinct courses of
action, In the opinion of the supreme
court of Minnesota, in American Button
Hole Company VS.. Thornton, decided In
December.
A mortgage obtained additional insur-
ance to protect himself without inform
ing the mortgagor; and, when the
mortgagOr sued the company for his
loss, the defense was made that the
policy was violated by the additional in
surance, of which the mortgagor had
not given notice. In this case, Doran
VS.. Franklin Fire insurance Company,
the New York court of appeals, on Octo-
Der "a, decided that, as the mortgagor
had no knowledge of the act of the mort
gagee, he was not to be held to a default
in giving notice.
An agent made sale under false rep
and the purchaser brought
an action against his principal for this
wrong act-not for the damage suffered.
IF he could recover, the principal would
be liable to arrest unless he paid the
Judgment. In this case-Kennedy VS..
McKay-the supreme court of New Jer-
sey, at a recent term of the court, de-
cided that the principal was not liable
except for the money paid Oh the con-
tract; that the purchaser must rescind
the sale for fraud, and then sue the prin-
cipal for the damage suffered.
The double agency of A real estate
broker, who assumes to act for both
parties to an exchange of lands, involves
upon it's face inconsistent duties, and he
can not recover compensation from eth
er party, even upon an express promise,
until it is clearly shown that each prin-
cipal had full knowledge of all the cir
cumstances connected with his employ
ment by the other which would natural
~ affect his action, and had assented to
the double employment, in the opinion
of the supreme court of Ohio, in Bell VS..
Mcconnell, decided in December.
A lent money to B and G., on their
joint note, and the amount was divided
by B and G between them. B paid A
one half of the loan, and A agreed to
look to g for the balance. In an action
against B and @ for this balance, which
was not paid, Small VS.. Older, in Iowa,
B set up as a defense to any claim against
him the agreement of A not to hold him,
but judgment was given against him ON
the ground that no consideration for the
promise was shown, and he appealed.
The supreme court of Iowa affirmed the
Judgment, in December, on the ground
that a separate consideration must be
shown, for such promise, to bind the
lender.
Under an execution the wife of the
debtor claimed the property, and in
action recovered judgment against the
sheriff for taking it. In this case, Fisher
VS.. Shelver, decided by the supreme
court of Wisconsin, in November, the
evidence for the wife was confused and
conflicting. The sheriff appealed, and
Judge Orion, in reversing the Judgment,
said: "In contest between the credi-
tors Of a husband and the wife, if the
wife claims ownership OF the property
by purchase, the burden of the proof
is upon her to prove, by clear and salts
factory evidence, such purchase, and
that the purchase was for valuable
L L