The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1883-12-08
COMMERCIAL Law.
Brief Digcsts Of Late Decisions.
Compiled Specially for the st. Louis CONNER
eiai Gazette.l

TRADEMARK.
Plaintiff had q sign over his place of
business upon which was painted rep
rcsentation of row Of beer barruls, with
the letters Up. b. stamped on the
heads Of the barrels, the words .Depot
of the celebrated being placed above.
and the words philadelphia Beer be-
low the row of barrels. The defendant
erected over his place of business sim
liar sign to that Of the plaintiff, the chief
difference being the insert on of the let
tiers .'F. b., indicating and standing
for "sFredericksburger Beer, in lieu of
the letters Up. Il. : and the insertion of
the word 'FredcricksburgorN where the
word philadelphia appeared on the
sign and label of the plaintitf. HID,
that the plaintiffs sign could not DO
protected as atrade mark for the reason
that it related only 10 the description of
the beverage dealt in by him, and did
not in any manner Indicate origin or
ownership, it not appearing that tho
plaintiff was the maker OF the Philadel-
phia beer or its sole agent. -Eggcrs vs..
Hink, Supreme Court Of California.
WILL.
Testator devised to his son d store on
Water street. In another and .suhso-
quent item he devised the rest OF his
estate to his children and their issue,
on the final settlement and distribution
of his estate. In still another and sub
sequent item he devised unto his oxo-
cutors "all my estate, real, personal
and mixed, whatsoever, In trust for the
purpose herein 81 cciiied, and subject to
tho limitations and reservations In items
! before mentioned. = Held that as by
| d llerent parts of the will testators In
tention was not to have final distrbu-
ton and settlement of his estate until
his youngest son reached the age of
twenty-five, the rent OF the Water street
store was payable TO the executors and
not TO the son prior to that time Com
rows Appeal, Supreme Court Of Penn
sylyania.
/ COLLECTING COLLATERALs.
Where n debtor delivers 10 his crui-
itor promissory notes as collaterals, un-
der an agreement that the creditor
shall collect the amounts due thereon,
and, after dedueting all expenses, APP
| ply the net proceeds to the payment of
1.-the debt, the creditor is under obliga-
ton to use due diligence In the collec-
ton of the collaterals. When, under
such circumstances, the creditor takes
no active steps toward collecting other
than TO demand payment of the par
ties thereto and allows the collaterals
to become barred in his hands by the
statute of limitations. he does not use
due diligence for their collection, and
he should be compelled TO account TO
the debtor for The loss thereof, If the
collaterals were good and colectable
when deliveredto him. -Semplo Il Birge
Mfg. Go, vs.. Detwiler, Supreme Court
of Kansas.
suRETIEs.
When suret'es execute each to the
other, MS security between themselves
only, mortgages for tho payment of tho
debt, such mortgages are not available
to the creditors of the principal debtor
Jon tbs principle of abrogation. Hamp-
ton vs.. Phipps, Y. $, supreme Court.
The surcties on the bond OF the cash
ier Of I'M unincorporated association AFRO
not liable when this association becomes
a chartered company with other priv
| ileges and limitations than those 10 be
exercised by the private association.
Any unauthorized variation in IN agree
ment which surety has signed that
may prejudice him, or that may substi-
tuto an agreement different from that
which he entered into, discharges him.
Bcnslnger ct al. vs.. Wren ct AL, SUI
prcmo Court Of Penn.
TAXES PAID BY MISTAKE.
Where a person pays taxes on land
under the impression that he is the legal
IA 4 g
adopts such payments and claims the
benefit Thereof, in an action by the
county in which the land lies to recover
such taxes, the party making such pay
! ment is entitled 10 be reimbursed there
for by the owner As, In this case, tho
owners liability aroseby reason Of his
adoption OF the payments, in the defense
set up by him in the action brought by
the county, the statute of limitations
would run from that time, and not from
the date of the payment by the supposed
owner of the land, and would not bar
his action TO recover the amount so paid.
Goodnow VS.. Striker, Supreme Court of
| Iowa
INJUNCTION AND CORPORATE FRANCHISE
Where appellee as erted the exclusive
right to manufacture gas in particular
| city under an at of the legislature
viii h is unconstitutional and void, and
thereby puts appellant right to manu-
factule gas, also in the same CITY,
under cloud, and prevents it from
raising the necessary funds for the pur-
| rose, appellants are entitled to restrain
appellee from setting up such exclu-
sivc right. The fact hat appeIlent had
not obtained, as requ' red by its charter,
the consent of the city TO lay its pipes
and TO the enjoyment of its franchise,
does not destroy its right TO an iniune-
ton to restrain appellee from casting a
cloud ON the right to that franchise
Munday VS.. the Commonwealth. Ken
lucky Court of Appeals.
CHATTEL MORTGAGE.
II one gives mortgage Of chattels
| belonging to another, the oral consent
to, or ratification of, such mortgage by
the owner, can not affect the rights of
one subsequently taking a mortgage of
the same chattels from the owner with.
ont notice OF such ratification. Mailer
| M noufu Ettr,tsa,ai.a Ho..,.S .