The Eaton Democrat. (Eaton, Ohio) 1875-1903, 1882-10-26
COMMERCIAL LAW.
Brief Digests OF Late Decisions.
from the st. Louis Commercial Gazotte.l

COMMERCIAL LAW.
Brief Digests of Late Decisions.
lFrom the ST. Louis Commercial Gazctte.l
DECEPTION.
Defendant signed promfssory note
supposing it to be merely receipt for
plow. The agent of the payee presented
it to him for signature and told him It
was receipt, and at his request pro-
tended to read it to him. AS so read it
was only a receipt. He believed the
agent read it truly and so signed it. He
did not intend to sign, and did not know
he was signing, note. There was no
one who could read English within half
mile of where it was signed. Held,
that in any case it was defense to a
negotiable promissory note in the hands
of bona 1fde holder that the maker ex-
ecuted it not knowing it to be, and not
intending to execute, a note, but being
fraudulently led to believe he was exc
cutting some other instrument, it can
only be when he was guilty of nonegleot
sof care TO ascertaip what he -tyss slrz1zl
ing. Held, also, that the defendant was,
in so executing the note, guilty of such
neglect of care, and that the facts fur.
nish no defense against bona fde hold
er.-Mackcy VS.. Peterson, Supreme
Court of Minnesota.
TRADEMARK.
A court of equity will enjoin unlawful
competition in trade by means of simu-
lated label, or of the appropriations of a
name, as where the defendant appro-
PIRATES the name of hotel conducted
by the plaintiff, or initiates his label
upon preparations: In this case it
was held that s'Twin Brothers" is avalid
trademark for yeast. in connection with
label showing the figures of two mems
heads. The principle declared is that
mere words may become valid trade
marks when purely arbitrary or when
indicative of the origin or of original
ownership. VS.. Stratton, U. s.
Circuit Court, Eastern District Of Michi-
gan.
INTEREST ON PENAL BOND.
In suit on penal bond, a recovery
may be had against the principal and
| sureties for the amount of the penalty of
the bond, with interest on the same from
the time of the breach. The interest is
in the nature of damages for non-pay-
ment of the penalty when it became due.
-Wyman VS.. Robinson, Supreme Court
of Maine.
sToPPAaE IN TRANsITu.
The right of an unpaid vendor to stop
delivery of goods while in transit is not
determined until the goods have been
actually delivered to the vendee or his
agent. Delivery to railroad company,
though nominated and employed by the
vendee to carry the goods, is not such a
delivery. VS.. Marshall, 46
Law Times.
THUsTEEs' LIkBILITT.
| 1t is a general rule that trustees are
liable only for good faith and common
| prudence, and if loss happens to 6
trust fund in relation to which they had
exhibited this care and prudence, they
may be allowed for the loss In their ac
counts. But where an administrator
deposits funds of the estate in his owr
name and the bank fails, he must suffer
the loss.-Milliams VS.. Williams, -Sa
preme Court of Wisconsin.
SPECIAL DEPOSIT.
A railroad company derosited with ,
banker money to pay certain coupons
and the receipt given for the deposi
stated that it was not to be controlled b,
the company except to pay the cou
pons. Held that thereby the depoSi
was applied absolutely and irrevocabl,
by the company to the payment of tn,
coupons and it had no remaining interes
therein subject to attachment.-Roge
Locomotive Works VS.. Kelly, New Yorl
Court of Appeals.
MORTGAGE.
A mortgage in possession is account
able for the rents and profits of the es
tate and is bound to apply them in re
duction of the mortgage debt. Hence
on bill to redeem from mortgage i
possession, the mortgageor Is entitled t
show the actual amount of the rents an
profits derived by the mortgagee Will
in possession.-Rooney vs.. Crary, Ap
pellate Court of Illinois.
FORFEIT.
Upon an agreement for the sale {
land, the purchaser paid $500 to th
vendor to be forfeited if the purchase
did not take title. And the vendor Wa
to forfeit like amount if he did nc
make the conveyance. The vendor III
, fused to make title and returned th
purchaser his $500, but refused to pa
, his own forfeit of $500. Held on su
that the purchaser was entitled to th
additional $500, as it was liquidate
damages and not penalty.-Mathew
vs.. Sharp, Supreme Court of Pennsy
. vania.
REINSURANCE.
, Where an insurance company, aft.
having taking risk and re-insured
. another company to indemnify itse
. against loss on its policy, discharges i
= liability by the payment of a less SUI
than for that which the original insurant
> was effected, the sum so paid by it wi
be taken as the amount of damage sus
r tanned and the measure of indemnity
e be recovered from the re-insuring col
v pany, provided such sum is with
:, amount of the reinsurance policy, al
|. does not exceed the amount of actu
loss, and such policy contains no CO
n dition for pro rating loss or limiting Ii
l. bility.-Detroit Fire and Marine In
Co. VS.. Commercial Mutual Ins. &c
a Supreme Court OF Ohio.
e TREsPAssER ON RAILROAD.
l. A trespasser upon the tracks of a ra
>. road company can not recover damag
s. for injuries received from passing train
e A child of tender years is no exceptit
le to the rule.-Moore VS.. Railroad Coz
'e pany, Supreme Court of Pennsylvani
MORTGAGE SALES.
st The rule requiring the application
At mortgage sales of the inverse order
IT the alienation rests upon the equital
i. principle of selling first any interest !
N naming in the original mortgagec
~ Hence where w. had mortgaged trs
- of land which he subsequently sold
- parcels with warranty, the interests ST
held by hin as second mortgage of
a vendees should be subjected in the fl
IS instance to sale upon foreclosure of
e original mortgage.--Ricker VS.. Greer
baum, U. S. Circuit Court, Northe
al District of Illinois.
be "A few minutes after Sheriff HUI
ed ington, of Oswego, N. Y, had turn
Crager, the bigamist, ,over to the penite