The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1883-11-24
COMMERCIAL LAW.
Brief Digcsts OF Late Decisiona.
Compiled Specially for the st. Louis CommeR.
ciAl Gazette.l

N~%~@@'~@@ eTN@faAa AnfA W
Briof DigOsta OF Late Declsions.
Compiled Specially for the ST. Louis CONNER.
Oal Gazette.l
NECESSARY SUPPORT or WIFE.
Goods were supplied as necessary
supplies to married woman from
October, 1873, to MarSh, 1879, TO the
amount Of $l04.92. In November,
1873, a statement of the value OF the
supplies to that time was sent to the
husband, but he refused to pay the
amount U6.S7) and gave notice that he
would not pay for past or future sup
plies unless they were furnished on his
written order He had not furnished
his wife any supplies and she had not
asked for any nor for orders from him,
and he had notified parties generally
W tn whom he had been trading that
he would not pay for supplies TO her
except upon his order, but he had not
given any order 10 her. Held, that the
defendant husband, by knowingly per-
hitting his wife to be without necessary
supplies, without money or credit Of her
own wherewith to procure them, author
lied her to purchase them from plaintiff
or any other person who, having knowl-
edge of her necessities, would supply
them. He can not, while purposelv
withholding all credit and all supplies,
shut her up to want, neither by private
notices barring each successive door
that might open TO her appeal nor by
inserting notices In the newspapers
warning every person against supply
ing her He must supply her IL he de-
sides to terminate the power TO pledge
his credit which his neglect has given
her. She is not bound to ask him for
orders for needs, neither Is any one
| knowing her necessities under oblga-
slons to obtain permission TO supply her.
,-Pierpont VS.. Wilson, supreme Court
| Of Connecticut.
FRAUDULENT DEED.
Suit was brought in equity TO set
aside and cancel deed made by plain.
tiff to defendant. The evidence tended
TO prove that plaintiff and defendant
were brothers and equal owners Of q
valuable tract of land Plaintiff all his
lifetime had been sick, diseased, de-
formed and crippled His mental fac
alties were weak and he at ali times
coniidcd in defendant, trusting and re-
lying upon him to control and direct
him in his business relations They
lived together on the land more than
fifteen years, and his business was en-
trusted to the management Of defend
ant. The fears OF plaintiff were opera
ted upon by defendant, and plaintiff was
made to believe that no was In danger
OF 10 ing his property from cause
which had no foundation, by which he
induced plaintiff to convey his portion
of the land to defendant, who paid
nothing whatever for the same, promls-
ing to reconvey the land 10 plaintiff
when said danger should cease TO exist.
On appeal 1t was held the evidence fully
justified decree setting aside and cam
ceiling such deed. -Holllway VS.. Holli-
way, st, Louis Court OF Appeals.
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
! When A, the owner, agreed with b,
his cousin, to give him lot II the latter
would boa d c, an uncle Of both, for
four years, and about two years after A
agreed with to buy an old barn and
move II on the lot and fix II up for %
dwelling, for which he was TO board tho
uncle for three and one half years more,
| and give A a small building on leased
ground at 5000, and b fully performed
the agreement by boarding the uncle
seven and one-half years, and giving
the small building, and also took pos
session Of the lot and moved the barn
on his lot and fitted II up for dwell
ing, fencing the lot and paying all tax
es, assessments and insurance thereon,
held that q decree IN suit by b against
A decreeing that A should specially
perform the agreement, which was u
verbal one, was proper and should be
affirmed, although A deducted the UNI
cle's board from his wages. Cole VS..
Cole, Supreme Court Of Iowa.
INTEREST RATES. n
A citizen of another State may con-
tract in Ohio for loan Of money to be
used in the State OF his residence and
agree TO pay interest therefor at rate
lawful by the laws Of the latter State,
although the rate exceeds that allowed
by the State Of Ohio. In such case the
contract Is not rendered usurious by the
fact that the note Is executed in Ohio,
If the parties, without intending to
eyade our usuTy laws, contract with
reference 10 the laws of the State where
the debtor resides. II Is not essential 10
the validity Of such contract as to the
interest that the note should be made
payable, in express terms, in the State
where the maker resides. To ascertain
whether the parties intended in good
faith to contract with reference TO tho
laws Of such State, all the circumstances
surrounding the transaction will be ex-
amined. Scott VS.. Perlee, Supreme
Court Of Ohio.
RIGHT OF WAY.
When the owner of land granted TO a
railroad company the right to select u
strip thereof for its right OF way, and
from the terms of the grant and the cir
cumstances under which IL was made it
is clear that both parties understood that
the right granted was 10 be exercised at
the tima az the final lncafion and ol,n-