The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1883-09-22
VERBAL AND WRITTEN CONTRACTS

Action was brought on three promie-
sorry notes executed by defendant TO
plaintiff, being the purchase money
of q tract of land which plaintiff
sold to defendant, who ct the time exc
cuted back a mortgage to secure their
payment, The mortgage contained .
power of sale, under which plaintiff
after the notes became due, advertised
and sold the same and had it bought
in for his benefit Il was afterward
agreed between them that II defendant
would surrender the possession of tho
premises to the plaintiff, he would
cancel the notes and release defendant
from any further liability. In pur-
suance OF said agreement defendant
permitted plaintiff to take possession of
the land and waived his right 10 re-
claim from the sale under the mortgage.
As this contract was not in writing,
plaintiff insists that he was not bound
by 1t. Held, that when q parol agree
ment is executed courts win not inquire
into the consideration nor disturb the
consideration in which parties have
voluntarily placed themselves. Where
the contract Is actually cancelled and
the property surrendered, 1t is at an
end, and the Formally Of q written re-
lease Is unnecessary. The effect Of an
executed agreement Is the same
whether the contract be sealed or
otherwise. Russell VS. Berkstresser,
Supreme Court Of Missouri.
RAILWAY FEN0ING.
The statute requiring railway compA.
MES to fence their tracks IL not for the
purpose Of protecting adjoining land
owners from damages that might DO
done by stock getting on the right OF
l way and thence to the adjacent crops.
The object Of the statute was to prevent
stock from coming on the railroad and
being injured, and to prevent accidents
which would likely occur II stock wero
not fenced away from the track, thereby
promoting the safety of passengers and
employees on the train. There Is q
special requirement. in the statute, the
plain object Of which Is to prevent stock
from getting on the track, and for .
failure to comply with il o special liz
bility is provided in respect to one
thing, viz, the damages which may be
done by the agents, engines or cars OF
the corporation to such stock 90 getting
on the road, and providing that when
bility in respect to such damages shall
be dependent upon negligent OF willful
conduct The manifest purpose OF tho
law is TO enforce this special duty by
attaching this special liability, and had
there been purpose to create liabil-
ity beyond that specified, very different
terms would have been employed. p,
ID. q =. n. r. Co. vs.. Schiller, Appel.
late Court Of Illinois.
wIDow's SHARE OF ESTATE.
A wife demands and receives from
her husband one-third Of the purchase
price Of . tract Of land as and for her
separate property, in consideration Of
her relinquishing to the purchaser her
inchoate right of dover In the land sold,
and the remaining two-thirds Of the
price passes into the personal estate Of
the husband, Of which he dies possessed
intestate. Held, that the widow Is mot
estopped from claiming her distributive
share of any part OF tho personal estate
of her deceased husband by reason Of
the fact that such estate was augmented
by the conversion Of such realty into
personally. BARBER VS.. Hite OF al, SUI
preme Court of Ohio.
EXEMPTIONS AND INSURANCE MONEY.
Where personal property exempt by
law from execution is destroyed, the in
Burance money due upon It's loss is not
exempt. The insurance company Is
the debtor OF the party insured for the
amount of the insurance. There Is Just
so much ''money due him. from the
corporation, not as the price or equiva-
L., 1.f kn faa hat
an agreement to indemnify the insured
against its loss by fire, the considera-
ton for which was the premium paid,
and not any interest In such property.
-Monniea We. German Insurance Com.
pany, Appellate Court Of Illinois.
~ CONSTRUCTION OF WILL. ail 4
10 A widow with three infant children
provided In her viii as follows: II wish
my aunt e. to take charge of my chill
dren, and to receive annually from my
estate for her services the sum Of $500. "
Held, that the clause was q direction
for payment OF certain sum annually
for services In charge Of children, and
that the right to receive such payment
ended with the termination Of her rela-
ton to the children. The direction in
| question was akin to an appointments OF
a testamentary guardian, and should
be simply construed. -Hews0n and
Emlen's Appeal, Supreme Court Of
Pennsylvania.
CHATTEL MORTGAGE.
The intention of the parties 10 chat
tel mortgage, that after acquired prop
erty should be included IN the mortgage,
must clearly and expressly appear In
the instrument itself. TheomiBalon can
not be cured by parol evidence Of the
understanding between the parties. ~
Montgomery VS.. Chase, Supreme Court
of Minnesota.
SALE AND REPRESENTATION.
A person buying stock Of : bank
from the bank is entitled to rely upon
assurances OF an officer Of the bank a.
to its financial condition. II alrsady 8
stakeholder, he is not bound to avail
himself of his right TO examine The
books of the bank. Union National
Bank vs.. Hunt, Supreme Court Of Mis-
souri,.