The Delaware ledger., 1883-08-25
Recent Legal Decisions.

tween G and S there was an agreement I
that each should pay half of the pote but ,
neither the bank nor NJ had any notice
of it. In an action for the note against
G alone he set up the defence that he
was liable for one half of its amount
only, but the trial Court gave Judgment
against him for the full amount. In
this case-Bank of Sonoma VS.. Cove
the Supreme Court of California, on
the appeal of the defendant, affirmed
the Judgment. Judge McKinstry, In
the opinion, said: "If party who
transfers note or other negotiable in
strument after it has matured, and who
had purchased it before maturity with
cut any knowledge of any defence to it,
his transferee acquires as good title as
he himself had, although it was overdue
and dishonored at the time of the trans
fer. Here the note was discounted by
the bank before it became due, without
any notice Of the agreement between
the original parties, and its transfer |
carried with it valid title to the in
strument."
BANKING-PUBLIo FUNDS USED BY
OFFICIALS TO PAY FALSE NOTES.
The Treasurer of town in Connecticut
made promissory notes, as such Treas
urer, and had them discounted at a
bank where he kept his public account.
The proceeds of the discount were placed
TO his credit as Treasurer, and the funds
of the town were from time to time de-
posted and placed in that acc cunt
After several renewals these notes were
paid by checks drawn by the Treasurer
on this public account. He then became
a defaulter to the exact amount of the
checks drawn by him to pay these fraud
ulent notes. The town demanded that
the bank should pay its deposits in full,
but the bank insisted that it was JUS
titled in considering the notes as valid
paper of the town, and refused to strike
out the amount of the checks from the
account. An action was then brought
for the disputed sum-town of East
Hartford VS.. American National Bank
and the Supreme Court of Errors, ol
Connecticut, upon the case being carried
there for adjudication, advised thai
Judgment be entered for the town
Judge Pardee, in the opinion, said
''Only in cases where, Notwithstanding
violations of restrictions in charters
the corporation has received and re
tanned for its advantage that which il
good conscience it should repay or pa.
for ; or only in cases where, if it is com
PEELED to repay money or pay for proper
ty applied to its use by the unauthOrize,
act of an agent, the judgment will in
fiict no loss upon it can Judgment b
given d, .lnst a municipal corporatio
or its money be retained, OF it be con
PEELED to pay. But, in this case, tn
bank having loaned money to publ
agent whom it knew had no authorit
TO borrow, it cannot invoke the aid {
this principle of equity without demon
strating that, upon all the facts,
judgment in its favor will infiict no loi
upon the town."
PRoAIIssoRY NOTE - MATERIA
ALTERATIoN-PLACE OF PAYMENT
A note was made payable twelN
months after date, or before if certai
goods were sold. No place of paymeI
was stated in the ncte, but it W;
agreed verbally that it should be cole
ted at the residence of the make
The payee, however, inserted in it thi
it was payable at First National Ban
Sioux City, Iowa" 1t was then 50
before maturity, and without any n
tice of the agreement as to the place
payment, to Z. The maker refused
pay the note, and in the action broug
upon it-Charlton VS.. Reed-set up Il
defence that the insertion of the pla
of payment was a material alterati,
and invalidated the instrument Il
that as the time of payment was
definite the note was not negotiab
and that it was not a material alterat
of a nou-negotiable note to insert
pldSC VI pdg lhChIs AhC hVlChuduI IL
Judgment, and the plaintiff appeal
TO the Supreme Court of Iowa, whe
the judgment was affirmed. The Chi
Justice day, in the opinion, said g
is insisted that this note was n
negotiable because it is not certain
to the time of payment. This positi
is not sustained by the weight
authority. 1t has been decided in Pen
sylvania, Vermont, Massachusetts a
Kansas that note payable at certa
time, whether in the event of sale
other contingency, is negotiable. T
cases relied upon by the defendant
show that the notes there in questi
were not payable at all except in t
event of some contingency. The altel
tion in the note here was material
teration, and a material alteration IN
be shown to invalidate note even
against the indorser thereof for val
before maturity"
PARTNERsHIP-DIsso Al
SETTLEMENT-REOPE SETTI
MENT FOR FRAUD.-After a disso
tien of partnership and settlemC
Of the accounts between the memb
one of them filed a bill in equity
Opan the settlement and for a new ,