The Penn's Grove record., 1883-09-01
i, Recent Legal Decisions.

~" Ll. #M - T.
FALSE PRETENsEs - SUBSEQUENT
FACTs.-J., a merchant, was indicted
for obtaining goods by false pretenses
from f. z. q Co., wholesale dealers,
and the false representation was this
He stated that he wanted to buy goods
ON credit, in the fair and usual honest
course of trade, with the intent to pay
honestly for them. And f. z. & Co.,
it was declared in the Indictment, on
the faith of this pretense delivered the
g0odsto J. A conviction was had, and
il was objected on the appeal of case
State vs.. Jordan-to the Supreme Court
of Louisiana, that these facts were not
sufficient to justify a conviction. Butthe
Court affirmed the judgment, and
through Judge Fenner, said sWethink
the facts are sufficient to show a bargain
of sale, so that the delivery of the goods
is connected with it. There is quite
enough here to support an indictment
for obtaining goods by false ~pretenses,
and a conviction thereon"
MINING - DEED-SURFACE SUP
PORT - MACHINERY, Ere. - Pur-
chasers of the surface land from the
same grantor who had sold and con-
sveyed the minerals Hereunder brought
an action to eject the mine-owner from
the occupation of any portion of the
surface for sinking shafts, making any
excavations or constructing any ma
ehinery, because by the deed for the
minerals no reservation for surface
rights was made. In this case-Ericson
VS.. Michigan Land and Iron Company
the plaintiff succeeded in the trial
Court, but the Judgment was reversed
in the Supreme Court of Michigan.
Judge Campbell. in the opinion, said
SIT seems to be the general and We
think the better doctrine that a mere
reservation of minerals OIL such a
reservation with the right of mining,
must always respect surface rights of
support, and will not, standing alone,
permit the surface. to be destroyed
without some additional statutory or
contract authority, ami that such
statute or contract authority will be
carefully construed to prevent the
destruction of surface rights.
''But it seems to be also agreed that
the easements to do such acts as are
reasonably necessary to get out the
mineral and remove it from the mine
may lie granted or reserved so as to
attach to the mining estate. We think
that ejectment will not lie for those
parts of the land necessarily occupied
by shafts or other mining excavations
or ~erections made and used solely
for mining purposes, and that their
use is in the nature of an easement
which is ap%purtenant to the mine. The
plaintiff is entitled to compensation
under the deed for the appropriation of
the surface, but he cannot eject the
company from the land which it is oc-
cupying for the necessary purposes of
1. CHATTEL Observation-Disclosures
RESERVATION OF DEBT SECURED.-2.
THE SAME-PRIoRITY OF FILING
PRooF.-A chattel mortgage was given
to secure a note of $500, which was not
due, but a payment of $50 was to be
made for ten months and there was in
dorsed upon the note that it was given
to secure the payment of this sum of
$50 monthly, and that when all of these
payments were made the notes should
be null and void. The mortgageor also
gave two other mortgages on the same
property, and all of these mortgages,
three of them, were filed by the same
person at one lime. On the trial it was
shown that this person acted as the
agent of all the mortgages in the filing,
and the first mortgage was shown to be
he prior act of the mortgageor, and
he objection to its validity, because of
he Misrepresentation of the amount due, |
was overruled. From the judgment in
MS favor, the case-Manox VS.. Street
was carried tothe Supreme Court of