The Penn's Grove record., 1883-08-18
Recent Legal Decisions.

BLANK INDoRSEMENT-FILLED IN
AS A GUARANTY.-The payee of a
promissory note indorsed it in blank,
and the holder of the note wrote above
the Endorsement a guaranty. He had
failed to have the note protested for non
payment, and the indorser was discharg-
ed. An action was brought. upon this
guaranty and the plaintiff was defeated.
He carried the case--Belden VS.. Hahn
TO the Supreme Court of Iowa, where
it was affirmed. Judge Rothrock, in
the opinion, said The blank indorse-
ment of a promissory note by the payee
creates the liability Of an indorser as
understood by the law merchant.
Such on Endorsement creates the same
liability from the indorser to the indor-
see as if it were in full. But the con-
tract of Endorsement is very different
from a contract of guaranty, and the
holder of a note with a blank indorse-
ment by the payee has no legal right
to change the obligation of the indorser
by writing a contract of guaranty over
the name of the payee without his
knowledge OF consent. The guaranty
being void in law, no recovery can be
had upon it,"
LARCENY OR EMBEzzLEMENT.-
The clelk of a local agent of an express
company TO whom was intrusted about
$1,000 in United States currency, ap-
propriated the money to his own use.
He was charged with and indicted for
larceny, and convicted. He carried
the case in error-Warmouth VS.. The
Commemorative the Court of APP
peals of Kentucky, where he argued
that his act was not larceny, but en-
bezzlement. The Court agreed with
him and reversed the judgment. The
Chief Justice, Hargis, in the opinion
said 1.-The charge of the Court on the
trial-that if the defendant received or
receipted for the money as the agent
or clerk of the express company which
aas to transport for hire, then the
money was legally in the possession of
the company, and if the defendant
carried II away with a felonious intent
he was guilty of larceny-Was an er-
roneous submission of the case. Gen.
orally when the agent has received
goods or money to carry, deliver, con-
troll, or manage for the principal, I'M
less the agent parts with the manual
possession and delivers the property to
the principal or to another for him
or places it in some depository, as a
draw or safe provided for the purpose,
and to which the principal or superior
agents have access or oyer which they
have control, he cannot be convicted of
larceny for a ~felonious appropriation of
the goods or money, the offense being
an enlightenment. There would be no
trespass committed, and there can be no
larceny without a trespass, The judg-
ment must be reversed"
MARRIED WoMAN's MoRTeAeE.-
M. borrowed $500, to secure which he
and his wife gave a mortgage on her
undivided one half interest in real prop
erty which vas her separate estate.
Subsequently she acquired the other half
of the property, also has her separate
estate and on the mortgage being can
celed she and her husband gave a new
mortgage on the entire property for the |
loan. which had been increased to 5000.
Tie debt was not paid, and the mort
gage was duly foreclosed. An appeal
Vas taken in this case-McGill VS.. The
Mercantile Trust Company-to the
Court of Appeals of Kentucky, where
the decree was affirmed. Judge Hines,
III the opinion, said The wife cannot
under the statute bind her separate !
estate by mortgage for the debt of her
husband but her power to mortgage
for her own ISL and benefit is Incl
dental to the power to sell for that
purpose, and as the evidence in the
record shows that the money received /,
on the mortgage was applied in dis
charge of liens on the two tracts on the
interest of the wife in the land, the
debt is in effect the debt of the wife,
and not that of the husband, and the
mortgage is therefore binding.o
Dom rrv ron SYrp cr~rro /
M. deposited with a bank in New
Orleans a number of Havana lottery
tickets for collection. Its correspondent
in Havana charged a heavy percentage
Tor collecting, and M. refused to pay
mole than one-half of one per cent. |
The Bank insisted that it was not in !
the wrong, as the commission had not
been charged by it but by its CORE
spondent, and suit va brought-Ma-
sick VS.. the Citizens Bank OF Louisiana
and a judgment for the overcharge,
$l260, recovered. An Appeal was taken
TO the Supreme Court of Louisiana
where the judgment was affirmed.
Judge foche, III d opinion, said
1.-THE proper and legal course for the
Bank before sending the tickets to
Havana for collection, without fixing
or restricting the rate of commission,
was to have done what it subsequently
did after this Objectionable charge, to
have ascertained the charge for collec-
tion. 1t was its duty to effect collec-
tions in the most expeditions manner
and ON the most reasonable terms. All
agents are responsible for the acts of
their sub-agents, and the defendant is
and must be held responsible for this
o~yercharge in commissions made by its
correspondent or agent in Havana.
INsoLvENT BANK COLLECTING |
AND DpArr Nhioa