The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1883-06-30
NUMBER 26.
COMMERCIAL LAW.

SIGNATURE AND RATIFICATION.

! NoulVlCu NpCtlhllN Tor inc NJ. LOUIS tOWNltl.
cial Gazette,
SIGNATURE AND RATIFICATION.
Action was brought upon notes pur-
porting to be indorScd by the firm of
Mullancy 4 Hays. 1t appeared that the
notes were not in fact indorsed by either
member of the firm, or with their knowl-
edge, but their tirm-namc was So used
by one Denis Mullancy, mt the request
of one Ryan, the maker. II was shown
in evidence that all the parties had been
intimate business associates. and for
time partners, and were all related, and
that the firm were under personal obi
cations to Ryan, the maker. Denis
Mullancy had been Il partner in the firm
of Nlullancy, Hays X Co., which had
preceded the present firm, and was en-
plovrd about the new firm. having some
sort or claim for unadiuslcd partnership
interest He had, il seemed, previously
signed the lirm-namc in receipts for On
press matter. had collected money for
them and had charged it To himself In
the absence of the firm he signed the
tirm-namc To the notes in question The
members of the firm were informed
about the signing upon their return, but
did not disatlirm the signing until about
the time the notes maturcd. The court
decided that, even if the evidence set
forth above did not establish an agency
on the part of Drnis Mullancy i'll the be
ginning, il clearly tended to prove
subsequent ratification. II was also
held that the use made of the tirm-namc
did not amount to forgery. Mullancy
ct al VS.. First National Bank Supreme
Court of Indiana.
CONSIDERATION.
An agreement to support the grantor
where it forms " substantial part of the
consideration in the conveyance of land,
is in the nature of secret trust for the
benefit of the grantor, and if the trans
action leaves the grantor indebted he
You'd his means of payment, this secret
trust will avoid the conveyance rs to
creditors not fully provided for. SO, n
son remaining and working in his
fathers family after becoming of age
can not recover for such services with
out previous contract therefor Where
II special contract is claimed to have
been verbally made years before, and
such Il secret and stale claim is alleged
rs the liability of grantees To grantors,
! court of equity must hold grantees with
!, ,unrrlaNed strictnrss to show that the
= the connttN snuDort the grnntor and
" al, Appellate Court, nn''"i~l- nnrt of
TRANSFERRING STOCK.
- As between the asSignor and assignee
1t tho rnlIitnblr title of stock owned by II
:, marty in an incorporated company may
br transferred without observing the re-
~ uuircmrnts Of the charter or bylaws "l
~ tho rompany. Where an aSsignor de-
hvers certificates of stock to an assignee
with no limitation in the terms 81 inc
ASSIGNMENT rs to the use To he mace "'
the stock, il is reasonable To presume
ut that the assignee was hulhorIHeu !"
10 make any legitimate use ol lhr S.""N
that righliul owner might. H. III TACT
II the assignee does max" an improper nS'
Nv of the certificates, neither the ~ lTho
IS nor his representatives can recover !"
m. AGAINST an innocent purchaScrior value
II Otis vs. Gardner ct al, supreme
nm Court of Illinois.
10. CONSTRUCTIONS or CHARTER
The words "claim or demand III
,re ,i,, charter which provides that II
rty action shall he maintained against IN
in city upon any claim or demand nhle'
ri. thn same shall have first been prcsente
In the common council for allowance
"a unuly 10 claims on demands arlsih
,,a mon contract only, and not I" Iho'
,.n, nrisipU out Of IA tort. Bradley vs. W
nnt of Eau Claire, Supreme Court oil We
ne, mont.
ian ASSIGNMENT FOR CREDITORS.
An ASSIGNMENT for the benefit
cnt creditors which prefers the claims
VAS certain creditors is moi void under
ned laws Of Missouri because OF such pr
. in orrnrc. hut inurcS for the hehfh'
uw- All creditors. II will he treated Us
J, of ASSIGNMENT for the benefit OF rr'dit'
be GENERALLY. Martin VS.. liausman' =
1cJ states Circuit Court, Woste
,t, is District of Missouri.
'nl- SALE OF HOMESTEAD.
~ ~ I'm an action Of cjcetmcnt where
M defendant denies title anu reilcS VI
'', I' an execution sale rs his title, the Pi"
~, tiC' may show the sale IS Voin ny req
W.. Of being the homestead. Whrh ~
49,, sold under IN execution c"h9'N,''
IA; 100 acres on which there was hol
;,,',, stead, and il was sold rs one tract
i'"9" ,oln i void as to the whole kipp
Ballard Supreme Court Oh M''''''S
n2" cuArrEL MORTGAGE.
,uno- III, indorgcc of a negotiable pro-
- tbn ~, note secured by II chattcI III
hun ooGc. which was transferred NJ
N the same time the note was lndorSe'''
5 that moi assigned in writing, can not III
ouble tain rcplcyin in his own name Tor
mt in mortgaged property against the II
about paoeor. Ramsdcll vs.. Iewksbury'
apply Drcme Court of Maine.
1 pur- BUILDING ASSOCIATION.
Dcpositors in building ass
cathe. ton both those who are merely d.
h. end itors and those who are dcposltor'
, clock stockholders are creditors OF tn
= large solvent association, and are the
course entitled to a dividend on the fur
IaI,and distribution. -Cresweli Appeal
heel IRENE Court Of Pennsylvania.
watch pm ,,o,,
: :, top Of Agency can not be Knew th'
a. our proof that the p[[kpacting for mel
Its lit alleged as SfffPfed his actsM ;a CGgrt
:, - MN tbo 51 ssI ct al, PhiladelPni0
mon Pleas.
2 ~ >s