The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1883-08-15
Recent Decisions From supreme Courts of
Other States.
CORPORATION STOCK.

CORPORATION STOCK.
When shares of the capital stock are issued
BY a corporation TO the original subscribers
as full paid shares, and are sold by them as
such, a purchaser thereof in good faith can
not be hello liable to a creditor OF the corD0-
ration in the value of his stock as for unpaid
insiallments.-Bryant VS.. Ehlen, Supreme
Court of Maryland.
CORRECTING INSTRUMENT.
An instrument may be reformed in clse of
fraud. accident or mistake, but where the
mistake was the result of the supine negli-
gsnce of psriy who sleeps upon his rights
until other duties and responsibilities have
grown up, the law will not help him---Sls-
quehsnna Mutual Fire Insurance Company
VS.. STank, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
DAMaeEs-PRoFITs.
Damages for breach of contract can not be
measured by prospective profits, because such
profits are generally uncertain and specula-
tive. But 10 some cases profits are the best
possible measure of damages for the very
reason that the loss is indisputable and
the amount can be estimated with
almost absolute ce-tainty.-Allis vs. Mclean,
Supreme Court of of Michigan.
FIRE INSURANCE.
policy of insurance is only contract of
indemnity against actual loss. The consignee
of goods damaged In transit has no right to
abandon them TO the Insurance Company and
claim the whole insurance, except in case Of
total loss, or such serious damage as to rem
der them unmarketable -Hicks VS.. McGehee,
Supreme Court of Arkansas.
HUSBAND AND WIFE.
Where a man makes purchase with his
own money but has the title put in his wife's
name, the presumption is that he intends it
as gift. This, however, is merslya presump-
ton OF fact to pr vail in the absence Of con-
DC 4 hi I-1
phia Court of Common Pleas.
MASTER AND SERVANT.
A master is not liable for an injury to a
servant occurring from the negligence of a
fellowWorkmap, unless the latter was known
10 &c careless and incompetent so as to i'm
pute negligence to the master in employing
him.-Jones vs.. Phillips, Supreme Court OF
Arkansas.
PARTNERSHIP.
Where insurance against loss by fire is
affected by member of firm in the firms
name upon property OF the firm and the pre-
miUm therefor IS paid for from funds of the
firm, though charged by some member 10
himself, the insurance will be for the benefit
OF the firm, Notwithstanding the member thus
affecting it intends it for his own private
benefit-Tebbetts VS.. Dearborn, Supreme
Court Of Name.
STOCK SUBSCRIPTION.
Where written subscription for shares IN
a company was unconstii uti0nai on its face,
. a coDiemporaneous understanding between
the subscriber and the promoter that the
sub criber should have an option 10 take the
shares or not, could not be set up by the sub
scriber as a defense after others had been in
Guced TO subscribe on the faith of his sub.
scfiption. The liability OF the subscriber
having been once fixed By subscription. could
not be avoid ed by notice on his part 10 the
promoters OF the company thai he declined
TO take the shares, nor could such liability be
effected by the fact that he failed % meet
subsequent calls. that no call was made upon
him, that be participate in no meeting Of tue
company, and that no certificate OF stock was
issued to him.-Haskell VS.. Sells, St. Lc1is
Court Of Appeals.