Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-10-02
RECENT LEGAL DECISIONS,
From Bradstreet,sl

>>~>O'~>Ae oS1AOAASAV>S00
From Bradstreet'Gl
To JUSTIFY an attachment Of personal
property the affidavit must show the or
istence of actual facts within the knowl-
edge of the afiant that he believes the
facts exist is not sufficient, in the opin-
ion of the Virginia Court of Appeals, in
Sublet VS.. Cary.
A CONFESSION made by an accused
person, while he is In prison, to police
officer, may be given in evidence
against him when neither threats nor
promises were offered by the officer to
induce a confession, in the opinion of
the Supreme Court OF Louisiana, in the
State VS.. Alphonse.
In order to maintain an action against
the trustee of a corporation for debt
OF the corporation on the ground that he
has signed false report, it is necessary
to show bad faith and intent to deceive
on the part of the trustee, In the opinion
of the New York Court of Appeals, in
Bonnell VS.. Griswold.
A MARBLE slab put on counter for
the purpose of ornamentation is not q
fixture unless there is an intention to
annex it to the freehold, and, therefore.
it will not pass to the purchaser of the
freehold by Sheriff 8 sale, in the opin-
ion of the Supreme Court of Pennsyl-
vania, in Harmony Building Association
VS.. Berger.
A BILL in equity asking for an &C
count of profits and an Injunction for
the infringement of patent, which
showed upon its face that the patent had
expired when the bill was filed, will be
dismissed unless there are such circum-
stances in the cause which render an
action at law difficult, inadequate or
incomplete remedy for the complainant,
in the opinion of the United States Cir
cult Court, at Trenton. N. j., in Camp
bell VS.. Ward.
An informer against persons violating
the acknowledgements laws, under the In
ternal Revenue act of Jan. 6, 1872. and
the circular of the Commissioner of July
81, 1873, is entitled to such percentage
OF the net amount recovered as the
Commissioner shall allow and the Secre-
tary of the Treasury approve, in the
opinion of the United States Court of
Claims, in Green VS.. United States, de-
cided in June. In this case the inform
er claimed 10 per cent of the sum re-
covered, which was 1877, O50.23, he was
allowed 5,G00.
CAPITAL stock was issued to an amount
In excess of the limit fixed by the char
ter of the corporation, and, the corpora
ton becoming insolvent, it's creditors
sued the stockholders to recover the
amount due them from the CORPORA.
ton under their statutory liability.
Among the stockholders proceeded
against was A, who held some stock
which was an overissue and some of the
shares which were within the chartered
limit. In this case, Scovin VS.. Thayer.
the Supreme Court of the United States.
In April, through Mr.. Justice Matthews.
decided that the stock issued in excess
of the amount limited was unauthorized
and void that the holder of such stock
was not entitled to any of the rights or
subject to any of the liabilities of q
holder of authorized stock; that q stock
holder of both void and valid stock
could not set off the installments which
he had paid on the spurious shares
against any unpaid balance due upon
the authorized shares held by him.
A FENCE was built across a street in
1852 by railroad company, and in 1881
an owner of one of the houses on the
street fled bill in equity to enjoin the
company from maintaining the fence, on
the ground that it was public nui-
sance. The bill was dismissed on two
grounds: 1. A court of equity will not
protect a person against public nui-
sance unless he shows that he suffers
some special injury /; if his injury is that
only which is suffered by the public gen.
orally, he cannot secure an Injunction.
2. In this case the. defendant has con-
tended with the condition of the street
for thirty years, and he has slept SO long
upon his alleged injury that he cannot
find relief in equity. To fail % assert q
right promptly is to forfeit the privilege
of enforcing it in equity, and that alone
is sufficient to deny the relief asked.
The complainant appealed to the Su.
preme Court of Pcnnsylvania-Cox
appeal-who affirmed the decree and dis
missed the bill with costs.