The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1883-07-28
COMMERCIAL LAW.
Brief Digests OF Late Deolslons.
Compiled Specially for tho st. Louis ComncR
cial Gazette,l
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE.
A husband in failing circumstances
had conveyed sixty acres Of land includ-
ing his homestead, in satisfaction OF
prior loans of his wife to him Of $l,1O0,
and being pressed by his creditors he
procured loan of $4,000 on the land,
and the wife gave up her conveyance
and joined in the mortgage 70 secure
such loan. She also released her dover
in consideration that her husband would
settle upon her twenty-three acres OF
the land, including their homestead.
agreeing to sign any other deed or
mortgage her husband might mako to
settle with his creditors. The husband
In pursuance of such an arrangement
conveyed to her the tract Of twenty
three acres. II appeared that his in
debtedness to her was ample considera-
ton for the property conveyed to her
above the amount of the homestead ex-
emption. Held, that tho conveyance to
her was upon sufficient consideration,
and was valid against the creditors OF
her husband. A husband, though in
| failing circumstances, may make aeon
veyance to his wife when II Is made
upon full and fair consideration. And
/ WhOu bQSH @OANOI 0hOVo Wv hheNNo 80
good faith, they with be sustained to the
extent of the consideration actually
paid, and no further. Payne, OF al. VS.,
Miller, ct al, Supreme Court Of Illinois.
MASTER AND ANT--PREsJMPTIoN
OF PAYMENT, idt
/. Where q person lives with rela.
tive who Is not bound to support her,
and who has no legal claim upon her
services, aud is supported by this rela-
tive and renders TO him services Of do
nestle character, the law will not inn
ply promise to pay for these services.
TO warrant recovery for them there
must be something TO prove, ct least,
that both sides understood that these
services were TO be paid for. 2. Where
this plaintiff had made to defendants
lawyer q claim for wages and also TO q
portion Of the stock Of his farm, and
also for advances of money claimed to
have been made in stocking the farm,
and the parties met In the presence of
defendants lawyers, and note was
given by defendant to plaintiff which
defendant was then led to believe was
in full Of all demands, and nothing
further was said at the time, or until af-
ter the note was given, about the claim
for wages, the giving and accepting the
note under the circumstances raises a
presumption that 1t was in full Of all de-
mands -Tumilty vs.. Tumilty. st. Louis
Court of Appeals. s.sa
FALSE REPRESENTATION, 3
S. had contract to supply wood to
railway company, and on his promise
to pay b. certain amount Of the profits
which he should earn under this con-
tract, b. made him advances. But In
stead of giving b. out Of the profits the
sum promised, he paid them to G. from
whom also no had got money on the
like promise. In an action to recover
from s. on the ground Of false repre-
sensations the court said The defend
ants duties and obligations rested al
together in promise. The promise to
get out wood for the benefit Of the plain
tiff, after he had promised the same
thing TO c., shows his moral obliquity,
but no legal incapacity to disappoint
either or both, If he chose to break his
promises There is no representation
of the defendant that he had property
. in possession, but that he had contract
! which, II performed would be of value
That he had such contract was true,
] and that he afterward performed 1t. Blu
d he assigned its avails to another per
son, in violation of his promise to plain
S tiff He has not done as he agreed, u
i is common infrmity. Best vs.. Smith
b Supreme Court of Vermont.
CORPORATIONS AND REAL ESTATE.
It's well-settled rule that when I
corporation is forbidden TO take or re
\ ceive lands, such prohibition goes TO II
u capacity to acquire, and a deed made Il
u it under such circumstances passes n
e title, and the conveyance will be abso
n lutely void, and the same rule apple
when such corporation has once ex
d hausted its capacity in acquiring liant
g to the limit that is given. Where
II general law for the Incorporation o
n corporate bodies contains no limitation
,e as to the capacity to acquire and hol
le lands, but declares that such act shal
be subject to any limitation or moditi
ii cation that may thereafter be enacte
De- by general law as TO the amount Of req
a estate to be held by such corporations
k. subsequent general law limiting thei
t, capacity to acquire lands to ten acre
Of will bind them, and any conveyance (
KS land to them afterward, when they hav
sy already acquired ten acres or more
We land, Will be null and Yolu.--ct. feteE
Roman Catholic Congregation VS.. Ge
nj main, Supreme Court of Illinois. s
d. SALE AND BREACH OF CONTRACT. :
mt A. sold to B. quantity Of corn an
or B. claiming that A. failed to deliver q
or the grain, sued to recover an advan,
let he had made on it. and damages for u
ub breach of the contract. A. denied tn
it he had broken his contract and counte
W. claimed for the balance due him, Al
~ for the damages he suffered from !
refusal to take the balance Of the graf
ic. On the trial the only witnesses were
ere and B. themselves, so that there was !
to- preponderance of evidence on the pa
u.s. Of B., the plaintiff. On appeal the cou
re- said: "Unless the plaintiff has prov
&c. his case by preponderance Of e
aw dence, the appellate court can not 81
,k- him new trial. And vendee can 4
'ou break contract and recover from
nto vendor what he has paid on it unless
eel proves by sufficient evidence that
er vendor Is In fault. MURPHY VS..
ANS. Supreme Court of Iowa,