The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1883-12-14
COMMERCIAL LAW
Brief Disssts 81 Late Decialou..
'ompiled Specially for the St Louis CONNER.
cfal Gazettel

Compiled Specially for the St Louis CONNER.
cial Gazette.l
NEGLIGENT SIGNING OF NOTE.
! Action was brought by the indorsee
of note, payable in bank, against the
maker. The defense was that two men
agreed with defendant to put a lightning
rod on her dwelling house for a certain
sum. After the rod had been put up one
of the men drew note for her to sign,
representing that it was for the amount
agreed upon. He read q note for the
sum then mentioned, which she signed.
The defendant was unable to read writ
ing. She relied wholly on the repre-
sensations of the person who drew the
note. There was no one at her house
who could read writing except the men
who rendered her the note. Her nearest
neighbOrs were ut considerable dis
lance from her. She believed the note
! in suit was the one. She did not have
time to 20 and get them to read the note
to her. She signed, believing it to be
for the sum agreed upon, and she never
| intended to execute such note as the
ona in suit appeared to be, it being for
a sum many times the amount for which
/ Gas she understoodl she had given her
note. He'd. that these facts made no
good defense. but brought the case with
| in the rule that the maker of promis-
| sory note, payable to order i'm |. bank
and negotiable a an inland bill of ex-
change, is liable to an indorsee for value
before maturity, if such maker was
guilty of negligence in falling to use
reasonable care to inform himself of the
contents. OF such note.-Yeagley vs..
Webb, Supreme Court of Indiana.
PAYMENT TO BROKER BY PURCHASER.
A broker who was not intrusted with
the possession of the property, con-
tracted in his own name to sell the same
to vendee who had no knowledge that
the broker was not the real owner but
dealt with him as such. The broker
notified his principals that he had sold
for them and directed where to ship the
property TO the purchaser. The own
ers, without any knowledge that the
broker had contracted in his own name,
and without any conduct on their part
clothing the broker with authority to re-
ceive payment for them, or any posses.
sion, actual or constructive, of the prop
erty, delivered the same to the vendee.
Held that payment by the purchaser to
the broker, under such circumstances,
is not bar to the right of recovery by
the owners.-CrOsby VS.. Hill, Supreme
Court of Ohio.
PARTNERSHIP AND EXEMPTION.
One partner, with the consent of the
others, may claim separate exemption
out of partnership which has been
seized on an execution against the firm.
The consent of the partners that each
should have and select an exemption
out of the partnership proper. after
levy thereon, amounts to a severance
of the joint property. and the several
right of each attaches to the portion by
him selected. A demand by each part
ner for such an exemption will be
deemed consent that the others have
and select the same. In such case there
is sufficient demand if the partner
informs the officer making the levy that
he claims his exemption and that tie
other partners do the same, and asks
permission to make his selection
O'Gorman VS.. Fink. Supreme Court of
Wisconsin.
1t is an essential prerequisite that a
deed, lease or other instrument should
be understood by the parties to be COM
pleted and ready for delivery, in order
to have a mere placing of it in the hands
or possession of the grantee or his agent
construed into delivery. The delivery
of written contract is indispensable to
its binding effect, and such delivery is
not conclusively proved by showing
the placing of the paper by the alleged
contracting party in the hands of the
other. Delivery is a question of intent
and it depends on whether the parties
at the time meant it to be a delivery to
take effect presently.-Jordan VS.. Davis
ct al, Supreme Court of Illinois.
MORTGAGE AND NOTE. ..
The innocent holder of n negotiable
mortGage-note, taken for value before
maturity, may recover upon it, although
both note and mortgage were obtained
by duress. But he is not entitled to a
foreclosure of the mortgage, especially
VIII re the property is the wife's home
stead and was mortgaged to secure the
husbands note. Mortgages are not in
tended to circulate rs commercial pa
per. and the interests of commerce do
not require that the principles applica-
bic TO negotiable paper be extended TO
mortgages executed Ike this one
First National Bank of Nevada W. Bry-
an, Supreme Court of Iowa.
ACCIDENT INSURANCE. ... I
Under policy of insurance against
accident, providing that no claim shall
be made under it when the death or in
jury may have happened in conse-
quence of exposure to any obvious or
unnecessary danger, and containing a
condition that the assured is required to
use all due diligence for personal safety
and protection, no recovery can be had
for the death of the assured which is |
caused by his being struck by a railroad
train while running along the tracks in
front of it in the night time, for the pur-
pose of getting on a train approaching
in an opposite direction on a parallel
track.-Tuttle vs.. Insurance Co., Su-
preme Court of Massachusetts,.
CONDITIONAL SALE.
Plaintiff sold herd of cattle condi- |;
taking a.note therefor and re- !
serving a hen by which they were to !
his until the note was fully /
paid" The vendee, without the knowl |
edge of the plaintiff. sold n part of the
cattle to the defendants, who paid him,
and he paid the plaintiff. who Endorsed
it on the note Ueir that the defend
ants were liable in an acton of trover
for the cattle and that the money paid
by them could not be allowed in miti-
CATION of damages VS.. Kid |
der, Supreme Court of Vermont.