The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1883-12-01
COMMERCIAL LAW.

CARRIAGE TICKETS AS PRoMIssoRY NOTES,
Suit was brought upon certain eartaro
tickets issued l3v appellants to one Fits-
gerald for teaming done by him for them.
and which appellee bought of Fitzgerald.
The tickets read. ssIflbbard. Spencer a
Co, Carriage tickets, 900. Hubbard,
Spencer u CO. They were printed. *.
cept the name. Hubbard, Spencer Il ca.
at the bottom, which was written. Held.
that the appellee was not entitled TO rea
cover in his own name upon the tickets
In question. They were neither due
bills nor promissory notes, but merely
acknowledgements Of Indebtedness to the
person 10 whom they were issued. That
while no particular form of words was
necessary TO constitute q promlssory
note, and while 1t need not contain the,
words, '.promise to pay in tho alb
sence OF such words there must beother
words OF equivalent import. In tho
document sued on there was not only no
promise 70 pay. but no words Of similar
import. Tho most that could be claimed
for these tickets was that they were In
the nature Of vouchers or acknowledge
ments Of services rendered by Fitzgerald
70 appellants, upon which the law Inn
piled promise TO pay, but MOTTO
third person for such services They
were merely non-negotiable chooses Ia
action upon which suit could BIO brought
only in the name Of Fitzgerald. --Hib-
bard vs., Holloway, Chicago Appellate
Court.
BANK AND DEPosIToR. .
Where the practice Of a bank was TO
nrAdif n darnof4ra.- M Al L.
amount of check upon another bank
deposited by him, and to allow him To
draw against 1t ut once, and In case die
check was not paid, TO debit tho iepos-
itor with the sames amount, the check
until paid remained the property 81 the
depositor, so that If the bank should
fail before the check had passed. out ~
his possession, and the depositor had
not drawn against II or deposited tho
check to straighten an overdrawn ac-
count, q court Of equity would order tho
check to BIO returned TO the depositor.
Balbach vs.. Frelinghuyson, United
States Circuit Court, District New Jer-
sey. lNtsigs
A bank had moneys on deposit, In
one account to the credit Of =. and IN
another to the credit Of s. as Sheriff.
After the expiration Of the torn Of Office
of s., the bank transferred the money
standing to his credit as Sheriff to HIS
private account, and afterward, with his
assents applied the money administered
( the payment Of his private debt 10 the
bank In an action by the bank upon
the official bond Of s., as Sheriff, for
moneys of the bank received by him In
his official capacity, It was held that tho
transfer and application OF the funds
referred to was defense for the sureties
on the official bond Of y. to the amount
for which such transfer was made
Mcmillan ct al. VS.. Boyd ct al, Supreme
Court of Ohio. aep llasa af1Haf8I
RAILROAD PASSENGER OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES. 3
/, A passenger stepped from train
when twas Una station slowing up, but
not stopped, and was thrown down and
injured by sudden jerking Of the
train. He sued the. company for dh0-
ages and recovered Judgment. The
company had defended on the ground
that alighting from train In motion
was such negligence IN itself that no ac-
tlbn would lie FOR damages. On appeal
the court said: 1t is claimed that Aiirht-
ing from aitrain In motion Is such fier-
hgehce rs 10 preclude recovery, whats
eyer the circumstances, This Is no
doubt true where the company Is not In
fault and the train has considerable
speed, but y Is not necessarily true
where there Is a question OF compare
tive negligence. A train might be- bate4
w N motion, moving SO slowly that
getting OIL would BE- attended with no
danger whatever. The question was
one Tor the jury II q passenger takes
no more risk by alighting than ordinary
prudent men take under the clrctim-
stances, ne y not precludnd from recov-
ering l9r an injury suffered in conse-
9uence ,oI we companny's negligence. -,
galveston, Houston q Santa Fe X. X.
20 vs. smith, supreme Court Of Texas.
g FIRE Insurance TRANCE s,..
=, q contract Ior insurance against loss
ny lre Y y con! contracs q indemnity. A
S s'on 70 InaS emo WIN q person who
mas no ins . interest," IN tne property
~, 4a ';,,, nos S.s.n'n any pecuniary loss
sy alJuiy , Thereto y mere wager, con-
LAY " puplic poilcy anu void. ANY
terest n % nya,a ss iegal OF eq1lsa1le IN.