The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-08-03


The unpaid subscriptions to the
shares OF corporation will pass by
assignment OF its assignee under an
assignment for the benefit of its
creditors, in the opinion of the su-
preme court of Missouri, in Shock
ley VS.. Fisher, decided in March.
A discharge OF bankrupt under
composition in bankruptcy will not
be effected when he does not pay
or tender the parentage of the claims
agreed TO be paid, in the opinion of
the United States circuit court, at
New York, in Ransom VS. Geer, de-
cided in June.
a police officer will be guilty OF
the crime of manslaugkter If he
strikes his prisoner fatal blow to
defeat his attempt to escape, unless
he is in danger of great bodily harm
or loss oflife, in the opinion OF the
supreme court of Iowa, in state VS..
Hartzell, decided In June.
Areceiver of an insolvent corpora
ton can recover in his own name
from the stockholders the unpaid
assessments upon its stock, in the
opinion OF the United States circuit
court, at Boston, in Caykendall vs.
Miles, decided in January. Judge
Lowell said that the demands ac-
crued TO the receiver himself in his
official capacity.
A borrowed money from B on the
representation that he was the
owner of real estate, when at the
time he was transferring his proper
ty to his wife. A also stated that
he had $4,000 in his business, $4,000
on bond and mortgage, and that he
owed but $1,000. In less than sixty
days A sold the bond and mortgage
and used all the money to pay his
debts. In this ease-Randolph VS..
Bergen-the New York court of ap-
peals, on May 5, decided that the
transfer by A of his real estate to
his wife was fraudulent to b, and
the conveyance was set aside.
An assignment for the benefit of
the creditors is trust, and the as
signee is regarded as a trustee; If
there are several assignees, and one
or more refuse to act under the
trust, the estate will vest in and
shall be executed by the remaining
trustees, in the opinion of the SUI
preme court of Missouri, in Shock
ley VS.. Fisher, decided in March.
A deposit was made in a bank on
Wednesday, and it did not open it's
doors on Thursday following. Tho
depositor petitiored to the court
who appointed the receiver, asking
that the sum deposited by him be
paid over to him on the ground that
the bank took no title to il, as its
president and directors knew or
ought to have known on Tuesday
that the bank was insolYent. IL APP
peared on the hearing of the petition
that they did not ascertain until the
close of business on Wednesday that
it was ruined by the peculations of
its cashier. In this case, Terhune VS..
the bank of Bergen county, in the
court of chancery of New Jersey, the
chancellor, in March. dismissed the
petition, and said: "The evidence
shows that president and directors
were not aware of the insolvency of
the bank when the deposit was made,
and the petitioner, therefore, is mere
lY general crediter of the bank for
the amount deposited"
An action was brought in the
United States circuit court, at Buff
falo, New York, upon coupons of
town bonds. The action was
brought in the name of A., TO whom
the coupons had been assigned, he
giving his check therefor, but which
he did not pay. In the action
Fountain VS.. Town of Angelica
the town raised the objection that
Fountain could not recover, as he
had no real interest in the coupons,
and on that ground Judge Wallace,
in April, dismissed the case. In the
opinion he said: Fountain testifies
he had no personal interest in the
transaction. He was informed the
coupons would have TO be collected
by suit. He placed them in the
hands of DPS attorney for collection
very soon after receiving them. He
testifies that he did not expect to be
responsible to the attorney for his
charges. In short, he was merely an
instrument of DIS, selected by D.,
and invested with formal title to
the coupons in order that ID. might
lItigate them in Federal court.