Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1883-08-16
Recent Legal Decisions.

Recent Legal Decisions.
BLANK lNDORSEAIENT-F IN
AS A GUARANTY.-The payee of a
promissory note indorsed it in blank,
and the holder of the note wrote above
the Endorsement a guaranty. He had
failed to have thenote protested for non
payment, and the indorser was discharg-
ed. An action was brought upon this
guaranty and the plaintiff was defeated.
He carried the case-Belden VS.. Hahn
to the Supreme Court of Iowa. where
it was affirmed. Judge Rothrock, in
the opinion, said "a The blank indorse-
ment OF promissory note by the payee
creates the liability of an indorser as
understood by the law merchant.
Such on Endorsement creates the same
liability from the indorser to the indor-
see as if it were in full. But the con
tract Of Endorsement is very different
from contract of guaranty, and the
holder of a note with blank indorse.
ment by the payee has no legal right
to change the obligation of the indorser
by writing contract Of guaranty over
the name Of the payee without bis
knowledge OF consent. The guaranty
being void in law, no recovery can be
had upon it,
LARCENY OR EMBEzzLEMENT.-
The clelk Of, local agent Of an express
company to whom was intrusted about
$1,000 in United States currency, APP
propriated the money to his own use.
He was charged with and indicted for
larceny, and convicted. He carried
the case in error-Warmouth VS.. The
Commonwealth-to the Court of Ap-
peals Of Kentucky, where he argued
that his act was not larceny, but en-
bezzlement. The Court agreed With
him and reversed the judgment. The
Chief Justice, Hargis, in the opinion
said The charge of the Court on the
trial-that if the defendant received or
receipted for the money as the agent
or clerk Of the express company which
was to transport for hire, then the
money was legally in the possession of
the company, and if the defendant
carried it away with felonious intent
he was guilty Of larceny-was an er-
roneous submission of the case. Gen
orally when the agent has received
goods or money to carry, deliver, con-
troll, or manage for the principal, un-
less the agent parts with the manual
possession and delivers the property to
the principal or to another for him
or places it in some depository, as a
draw or safe provided for the purpose,
and to which the principal OF superior
agents have access or over which they
have control, he cannot be convicted Of
larceny for felonious appropriation of
the goods or money, the offense being
an embezzlement. There would be no
trespass committed, and there can be no
larceny without trespass. The iudg-
ment must be reversed. y
MARRIED WoMAN's MORTGAGE
M. borrowed $500, to secure which be
and his wife gave mortgage on her
undivided one half interest in real prop
erty which was her separate estate.
Subsequently she acquired the other half
of the property, also has her separate
estate and on the mortgage being can
celed she and her husband gave new
mortgage on the entire property for the
loan, which had been increased to $1,000.
Tie debt was not paid, and the mort
gage was duly foreclosed. An appeal
was taken in this case-McGill vs.. The
Mercantile Trust Company-to the
Court of Appeals of Kentucky, where
the decree was affirmed. Judge Hines,
in the opinion, said q The wife cannot
under the statute bind her separate
estate by mortgage for the debt Of her
husband but her power to mortgage
for her own use and benefit is Incl
dental to the power to sell for that
purpose, and as the evidence in the
record shows that the money received
on the mortgage was applied in dis
charge of liens on the two tracts on the
interest of the wife in the land, the
debt is in effect the debt of the wife,
and not that Of the husband, and the
mortgage is therefore binding.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUB-AGENTs.
M. deposited with bank in New
Orleans a number of Havana lottery
tickets for collection. Its correspondent
in Havana charged heavy percentage
for collecting, and M. refused to pay
mole than One-half of one per cent.
The Bank insisted that it was not in
the wrong, as the commission had not
been charged by 1t but by its CORE