The Weekly Kansas chief. [volume] (Troy, Kan.) 1872-1918, 1883-04-05
COMMERCIAL LAW.
Brief Disc.. or Late Dcei.ion..

Brief Digest Of Late Decfsfons.
Compiled Specially for the ST. Louis Commercial Calsis-
HUSBAND AND WIFI.
In q contest bctwocn creditors Of husband and
the wife, wherca wife claims title 10 the property
in dispute BY mortgage conveyance from her hus
band the burden Of proof upon the wife to show
such mortgage or conveyance, and that u was Tor =
valuable consideration paid by her out Of her sepa
rate estate, or by some other person Tor her Eni
when these facts clearly established the burden
Of showing fraud in the mortgage or conveyance i
upon the party alleging it.-Semmens W. Walter
Supreme Court OF Wisconsin.
LANDLORD AND TENANT
If lessor agrees with Jesse that at the rNpira
ton of the term he shall have the refusal OF tn
premises for another year, the lessor is hound to
new the lease upon the same terms as the previous
year. Such provision, while not n renewal, give
such equity will be defense To a summary
proceeding in eiectment the part of the landlord
-McAdoo vs. Callum, Supreme Court Of North Gar
DINA
A tenant refused to pay his rent, and when he
was sued set up a countereiaim. claim for dam
ages for the annoyance he suffered in the of the
rooms rented to him. from another tenant of hi
landlord, who oeeupictl thu rooms above him. IN
carrying noisy mechanical business Held. that
such damages can not he set mp eounterelain to
action for rent due. To constitute a breach Of
an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, there must
be an eviction of the tenant and there cannot be
constructive eviction unless the possession of the
property rented is surrendered the landlOTd.-B"-
reel vs.. Lawton, New York Court OF Appeals,
LIABILITY or sLEEFING-CAR COnPANN.
A passenger on a railway train paid for aud oceu-
pied berth in "a sleepin. ear, and during the night
bis watch and money were stolen from his berth
On the trial of the action brought by him 10 recover
the value of his property. he proved that the sleep
ing car conductor who had charge of that ear AMI
the next one was absent for cighiy-fouT miles du
ring the night leaving his u the charge OF the
conductors of the other two There Was por.
ter for each ear, but his duties would not allow h
to watch over the occupants and their property; \
dgment was got by the plaintiff and confirmed ON
the appeal, when the Court said \ sleeping ear
company is not subject to the liability of an inn-
keeper or common carrier, but il Is bound, implied
w. TO that the person and property OF its patrons
are secure while they asleep. 1t has been decd
ed that steamboat company is responsible for prop
erty stolen from the state Of passenger whilst
he is asleep, if he is duly CAREFUL and the patron d"
n sleeping-car company holds similar relation 10
the company. The absence of the conductor was
clearly such negligence that the company must pay
the plaintiff for his loss. Howk vs.. Wagner Palace
Car Company, Supreme Court of Indiana
MORTGAGE.
Ii land subject to mortgage is conveyed to a
MORTGAGE, and such conveyance is not intended {"
be in satisfaction Of the mortgage, the law viii ~
gard the mortgage u subssting lem capable of be-
ing enforced against the land. Aud If the Interest
of the mortgagee in such mortgage istransierrcd
ing the pledge may be sold assigned To another.
Second National Bank vs.. Gleason. supreme Court
Of Iowa.
NOTES rs CoLLITERALS.
Where negotiable paper is transferred Is enlatc-
raj security before maturity, and the holder brings
suit against the maker plea of payment to the on
gina payee will not defeat recovery by the holder
unless il he shown that such payment was by y"u.
sent or authority OF the holdrr.-City Bank ~ Iav
Tor, Supreme Court of Iowa.
ORDERS AND INN ,HECK>.
Contractors building railroad agreed viii. mer-
chants that they will pay orders and time checks l.
sued by certain sub-cuntractOr to hi- employee,
and these merchants acting upon this agreement IL
tb.a k t,,~ gontl. -ola
The contractors refused To pay the orders and crcgS
and the merchants sued them. The coart -ai The
contractors base their defense "n the ground tl1t
these debts not their debts, but the debts
of others. for which they cannot he held liah" nm
less they have promised in writing To pay them. The
promise made was an original promise Of the co.'s.
tractors. for which they lia3is ON verbal pro-
vs.. o'Iiarl, Supreme Court of Wi-""a-
sin.
PROMISE INBENNTIN-
verbal promise by A TO indemnify for soiu.
security for is not promise 10 pay the debt ni
third person. but is an original promise AMI need
not be in writing to enable the promisrc to recover
any sum becoming due To him thercuntcr.-Drf-
miit vs.. Bickford, Supreme Court New Hampshire.
SIGNING WITHOUT READING IT.
Ordinarily, one who signs note sithout reading
il is guilty of negligence. Where one who - ahie q"
read signed a note in the presence OF bis wife, who
could read. and neither read the note himself nor
asked his wife read il, but signed relying ON the
of the person with whom he wa
he guilty of negligence in the sign
ing. and could not make a defense To IL against q
bona ide hoder.-Baldwin ct al. W. Burrows
srECIFT PERFORMANCE on CONTRACT.
In an exeeutory contract for the sale OF land,
where time is regarded the essence of the con
tract n court Of equity will decree specific pcriur
nance, il a tender is made within n reasonable time
although it may be subsequent To the day named.
II the contract for the sale OF land provided that
the title to the land not perfected within nine
months, the vendee might perfect il NJ the eNpcn~r
of the vendor might reconyey the hand amt ~
cover the consideration paid, time i the cssenrT
of the contract and court of equity cannot decree
a specific performaner.-Lowery -. Nrall-, Appel
late Court of Illinois.
TELEGRAPH CourANN's LINHILTTI.
A telegraph company, by printed rules and rrsu
lations upon their blanks to he notice u the -en
er of message limit its liability for delays ard
errors in transmitting and delivering messages, cN
cept when eau-ed by misconduct, fraud or want Ui
due the part of the company its servants or
agents. The mere fact that there error in
the message delivered is not Of Itself sufficient
proof OF negligence to entlc g. recovery. In unrr
peated messages the company i only liable whrn.
In addition error in the message as delivered
MISCONDUCT. fraud, want Of due care j. shown up
on the part OF the company its agents or servants
w. u. Telegraph Company ". Ca,ehpHle. Texas
Court Of Appeals.