The Delaware ledger., 1883-08-18
Recent Legal Decisions.

promissory note indorsed it in blank
and the holder of the note wrote abov
the Endorsement guaranty. He ha'
failed to have the note protested for non
payment, and the indorser was discharg
ed. An action was brought upon thi
guaranty and the plaintiff was defeated
he carried the case-Belden VS.. Hahr
to the Supreme Court of Iowa, where
1t was affirmed. Judge Rothrock, il
the opinion, said : q" The blank indorse
ment of promissory note by the payet
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 indorsel
by writing a contract of guaranty over
the name of the payee without his
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, ap-
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 1.-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 a felonious intent
he was guilty of larceny-Ras an er-
roneous submission of the case. Gen.
orally when the agent has received
goods or money to carry, deliver, con-
trol, 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
draw or safe provided for the purpose,
and to which the principal or 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"
MARRIED WoMAN's MORTGAGE
M. borrowed S350U, to secure which he
and his wife gave mortgage on her
undivided one-half interest in real prop
erty which was her separate estate.
Subsequently she acI Iuired the other half
of the property, also has her separate
estate and on the mortgage being can
celed sne and her husband gave new
mortgage on the entire property for the
loan, which had been increased to $4,000.
T 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 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 a bank in New
Orleans a number of Havana lottery
tickets for collection. Its CORES pondent
in Havana charged heavy percentage
ior 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 it but by its CORE
spondent, and suit was brought-Ma-
sick VS.. the Citizens Bank of Louisians
and judgment for the overcharge,
$l260, recovered. An Appeal was taken
to the Supreme Court of Louisians
where the judgment was affirmed
Judge Poche, in the opinion, said
"The proper and legal course for the
Bank before sending the tickets t.
Havana for collection, without fixing
or restricting the rate of commission
was to have done what it subsequent,
did after this Objectionable charge, t,
have ascertained the charge for collec
tion. 1t was its duty to effect collec
tions in the most expeditions manne
and on the most reasonable terms. AL
agents are responsible for the acts O
their sub-agents, and the defendant i
and must be held responsible for thi
overcharge in commissions made by it
correspondent or agent in Havana.