Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1882-09-13

An agent who has authority to sell is
without power to give credit OF the sale;
a special agent authorized to sell prop
erty cannot dispose of it In payment of
his own debts, in the opinion of the SUI
preme court of Alabama, In Burks VS..
Hubbard, decided at the present term.
THE partial payment of an undisputed
debt, after it is due, though it is accept
ed as a payment IN full, Is not an accord
and satisfaction of the demand; but the
acceptance of the promissory note of
the debtor, or any other collated thing,
without regard to its value, will be a
settlement of the debt, and the recovery
thereof will thereby be stopped, In the
opinion of the supreme court of Pennsyl-
vania, in Mechanics Bank of Harris
burgh VS.. Houston, decided In February.
In crossing a railroad track traveller
must be as careful as prudent man,
and in approaching it he must exercise
the caution which is ordinarily used by
careful men for the protection of their
lives; but the mere fact that a traveller
on stepping on the track does not look
to ascertain if train is approaching is
not conclusive evidence of want of due
caution On his part, in the opinion of the
supreme judicial court of Maine, In
Plummer VS.. Eastern Railroad Com
pany, decided on June II.
A BORROWED money from a firm of
bankers doing business as B & Co., and
he paid usurious interest upon it. To
pay his note he got the money from
other persons who had formed new
partnership under the same name, B &
Co., and when he was sued upon the
note he asked that the usury paid be al
lowed on the note. In this case, Skaters
Appeal, the supreme court of Pennsyl-
yania, in January, decided that A could
not set up any equity arising in the first
transaction, for the second borrowing
was from different parties.
A MORTGAGED to B his implanted
crop, and when it was grown he convert
ed it to his own use. B sued him Tor
this conversion, Collier VS.. Frank, and
was defeated. The supreme court of
Alabama, at the present session, in re-
viewing the Judgment, said: An equit-
n,
one who has notice of it, and who has
converted the crop to his own use, he
may maintain an action for the injury he
has suffered and recover damages, or he
may sue for the proceeds Of the crop if
it has been sold, as for money had and
received for him.
GOODS were sold to A by B, and in
the contract it was agreed that the time
of the delivery was in the option OF A,
In an action upon certain promissory
notes, given LII the transaction by B to
A, Gregory VS.. Wattowa, the defense
was set up that the contract was for
gambling transaction, and therefore that
no recovery could be had. The supreme
court of Iowa, in June, through Judge
Rothrock, decided that the contract was
valid one, as there was nothing to
show that the goods were not to be de-
hvered. Optional contracts which are
void are such as do not contemplate the
actual delivery of the commodity pur-
chased, but rather contemplate that the
subject of the contract is not intended to
be delivered.
A SUED B to recover the value of
three horses, and he was allowed to give
In evidence to prove that the horses
were worth the price he paid for these
and three other horses. The defendant
objected to the testimony, and on being
beaten in the action, Norton VS.. Wallis.
he carried the judgment for review to
the supreme judicial court of Maine,
which IN June affirmed it. Judge Pc
tiers, III the opinion, sfid: 1t is COM
mon thing to allow competent witnesses
10 give their opinions as to what prop
erty is worth, and how much it will
probably sell for, and therefore it is
clearly proper to show how much SINH
lar property has sold for, in order to ar
rive at the value of the property in ques-
ton, and 1t would seem strange If it was
improper to show the price at which the
same property sold.
A GAVE B his note to take up another
note, which B promised to do, but, in
stead, used it for himself. He was in
dicted for obtaining money under false
pretenses, and was convicted, but the
court arrested the Judgment. In this
case, Commonwealth VS.. Moore, the su-
preme court of Pennsylvania, IN Febru-
airy, affirmed the arrest of the judgment,
and the defendant was discharged.
Judge Paxon, in the opinion, said: A
false pretense to be within tue statute,
must be the assertion of al existing fact,
not promise 10 perform some act in
the future. The man who asserts that
he is the owner of a house states a fact.
and one that Is calculated to give him
credit. But a mere failure to keep a
promise is another and very different af-
fair. That occurs whenever a man fails
to pay his note. Tt is true, Chief Jus
tice Gibson doubted, in Commonwealth
VS.. Burd1ck, Barr, 1913, whether every
naked lie by which creclt has been
gained is not a false pretense within the
statute. This doubt has run its course
and has long since ceased to disturb the
criminal laws of this state.
A, B AND @ owned the mills on GER
tain stream, and they built a reservoir