The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1883-08-25
NUMBER "a.
COMMERCIAL Law.
Brief Digcsts OF Late Deciaions.
Compiled splallecy for the ST. louis CONNER.
s cial Gazette.l M
CHARTER AND FORFEITURE.

cial Gazette.l
CHARTER AND FORFEITURE.
When State granted charter to
corporation, reserving the right to pur-
chase its property and franchises after
the expiration Of twenty years, and by
n subsequent act granted TO such cor
poration perpetual succession with added
powers not included in the original char
ter, it was held to operate as relin-
punishment by the State of its right OF
purchase-the new legislation being q
repeal of the former wherever the two
were inconsistent The court said that
the franchise granted to the defendant
by the several acts of the Legislature
was in6ivisible, and constituted but a
single franchise. Hence q failure on
the part OF the defendant TO make GER
tain required improvements within q
certain time worked forfeiture OF the
entire franchise. Although II Is in the
discretion Of the court 10 impose a tine
rather than enforce forfeiture in such
cases, a forfeiture will be enforced
where the cause is the non performance
of a thing which is of the essence of the
contract. People VS.. Kankakee River
Improvement Company, Supreme Court
of Illinois.
CHATTEL MORTGAGE--PARoL PROOF
In chattel mortgage machine was
included which was not in the possess
sion of the mortgageor at the time the
mortgage was executed; but shortly at
ter he received it. Nothing was said In
the mortgage about its application to
after-acquired property. In contest
over this machine the court said: A
chattel mortgage will not cover after
acquired property unless It expressly 30
provides. II is immaterial that the par
ties may have intended that 1t should
have that effect. The mortgage can
not be changed or It's legal effect altered
by any parol agreement or understand
ing between the parties at the time Of
its execution The instrument must
speak for itself. 1t win not help mat
tiers to say that the description In the
mortgage calls for property not thon
ownedby the mortgageor, and that there
fore it may be shown by extflnsic eff
dence that they intended 10 include
property of that description then e4-
| pected to be acquired. This mode d
/ helping out the written instrument u
liable to the same objection. ~ Mont
gomery VS., Chase. Supreme Court Of
Minnesota. .,,...s.
STOCK SUBSCRIPTIONS.
| Where awritten subscription for shares
in a company was unconditional on It's
face, n contemporRneou understanding
between the subscriber and the pro-,
moter that the subscriber should have
an option to take the shares OF not,
could not be set up by the subscriber ~
a defense after others had been induced
u subscribe on the faith OF his subscrip-
ton. The liability OF the subscriber
having been once fixed by subscription,
could not be avoided by notice ON his
part to the promoters Of the company
that he declined TO take the shares, nor
could such liability be affected by the
fact that he failed to meet subsequent
calls, that no call was made upon him,
That he participated in no meeting OF
the company, and that no certificate Of
stock was issued to him. Haskell VI.
Sells, st. Louis Court Of Appeals. go.
CHARITABLE GIFT.
William Russell, .'for the purpose Of
founding an institution for the cduca-
lion of youth in st. Louis County, Mis-
Bouri, = granted lands and personal
property to Horner and his successors,
In trust, ''for the use and benefit of the
Russell Institute Of st. Louis, Missouri, :"
with directions TO sell. and to account
for and pay over the proceeds toThomaS
Allen, President of the Board Of Trus-
tees of the said Russell Institute ut 81.
Louis, Missouri, whose receipt should
be full discharge to the grantee.
Held, that this was q charitable gift,
valid against the donors heirs and next
of kin, although the institution was
neither established nor Incorporated in
the lifetime Of the donor or Of Allen
Russell VS.. Allen, Supreme Court of tho
United States. Wy
CORRECTING INSTRUMENT.
An instrument may be reformed In
case of fraud. accident or mistake, but
where the mistake was the result Of the
supine negligence ola party who sleeps
upon his rights until other duties and re-
sponsibilities have grown up, the law
will not help him. Susquehanna
Mutual Fire Insurance Company vs..
Swank, Supreme Court Of Pennsyl.
vania. O.
HUSBAND AND WIFE.
NHere man makes purchase VIII
his own money but has the title put IN
his wife's name, the presumption is tha
he intended it as gift. This, however
is merely u presumption of facts, 4
prevail in the absence Of contrary evi
dence.-Hill VS.. Earnest, Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas.
CORPORATION STOCK.
When shares Of the capital stock az
issued by corporation TO tho origina
subscribers as full-paid shares, and ar
sold by them as such, purchase
thereof in good faith can not be hell
liable to a creditor of corporation II
tho value of his stock as for unpaid In
stallments.-Brant VS.. Ehlen, Suprem,
Court of Maryland.
FIRE INSURANCE.
A policy of insurance is only con
J tract of indemnity against actual loss
J The consignee of goods damaged II
, transit has no right to abandon them Il
! the insurance company and claim tbs
whole insurance, except in case Of tota
) loss, or Of such serious damage as Il
render them unmarketable.-Hicks vs.