The Iola register., 1883-09-07
C0Ml(ERCIAL LAW.
Brief Disests OF Late Decisions.
Compiled Specially for the st. Louis Comnaer.
cfal r. ozoffo


Compiled Specially for the st. Louis CONNER
cial Gazctte.l
PASSENGER TICKET.
A person purchased q round-trip
ticket from Mobile to Niagara Falls and
return, and signed q contract printed
on the ticket that the return part of the
ticket must be stamped and the passen-
gers signature witnessed for identifi-
cation at Niagara before it should be
honored for passage. In an action by
the passenger against the railroad COM
pany for damages for being elected on
his return trip on account of refusing
to pay his fare (the return ticket not
having been witnessed for Identification
according to the contract) it was held
that under the circumstances the pas
senger could have no recovery. In the
absence of any evidence of waiver, or
that the passenger had no opportunity
to know the terms of the contract when
he signed it, such an agreement as that
set forth was binding. Also, that where
the contract was made by the agent of
line of connecting roads, the waiver
of its terms by one of the roads would
passenger conductor is not general
agent of the road, nor authorized to
waive the terms of written contract
such as that referred to.-Cloud VS.. st.
Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Rail-
road Company, st. Louis Court of APP
peals.
HOMESTEAD AND HUSBAND AND WIFE.
Thk question of homestead rights can
not be raised between husband and
wife. That can arise alone between
husband and wife against creditors or
purchasers. As general rule the house
of the husband, so long as they live to-
gether, is the house of the wife, and
when that relation terminates their le-
gal status is that of strangers. When a
homestead is owned by a husband and
wife as tenants in common, and a di-
vorce is had. the family relation ceases,
and neither is the head of the family,
and each Is entitled to possession of his
and her respective half, like other ten
ants in common. But the wife will be
entitled to have his half sold in satisfac-
ton of judgment in her favor for ali
VS.. Greenman, Su-
preme Court of Illinois.
DEBTOR AND CREDITOR.
A creditor can not lawfully pay him.
self with the debtors money without
the debtors consent, either expressed or
implied, and when the debtor delivers
him money for purpose which mega
tive's the idea of payment, the creditor 6
control is limited to the purpose de-
clared. Payment implies voluntary
act of the debtor, looking to the salts
faction in whole or in part of the de.
mand against him. In the case before
the court there was no such act what
ever. What was done by the defendant
was directly in violation of the orders OF
the plaintiff, who did not contemplate
or desire any such payment.-Detroit,
Hillsdale & Southwestern Railroad Com.
pany VS.. Smith, Supreme Court of Mich
igan.
SALE OF POISON.
In an action for damages for causing
the death of plaintiff intestate, the
evidence was that the intestate had
been recommended to take drug
known ass.black draught." and that
defendants Clerk gave him '.black
Drops" deadly poison, labeled "black
drops" but not labeled poison" The
clerk testified that he cautioned the
intestate that the drug was poison.
Held, that if the intestate was warned
of the deadly nature of the drug the
defendant would not be liable in this
action because of the omission to mark
the drug ''poison," as required by the
statute. But, if no warning was given,
the omission to label the bottle with the
word "poison," was such negligence
on the part of the vendor as to render
him liable. -Wohlfort VS.. Beckert, New
York Court of Appeals.
CORPORATION.
Where a corporation is formed and
purchases the busines. and assets of
hrm, the members of which compose the
in part, which business is
as before the dissolution OF
the partnership, and the corporation. as
a part of the consideration for the
property and assets of the firm, as
sumes its debts and liabilities, the
promise to pay such debts is founded
on sufficient consideration, and Il
creditor of the firm may maintain an
action for his debt against such cor
poration, especially when it still con-
tInues him in the same employment out
of which the debt was incurred
Shober & Carqueville Lithographing
Company VS.. Kerting, Supreme COurS oi
Illinois.
LETTER OF CREDIT.
In order to render the writer of lettel
of credit liable either upon an implied
acceptance of, or an agreement to ac-
cept, drafts taken on the faith of such
letter, the drafts must be taken for 3
valuable consideration. A promise &c
have the drafts discounted, and to take
up notes on which the persons taking
the drafts are liable as indorsers, is not
q valuable consideration. If letter oi
credit provides that drafts drawn under
its authority shall be used only for the
purpose of being discounted at partic-
ular bank, persons taking such drafts.
with notice that they have been offered
to the bank for discount and refused.
can not recover thereon.-Sherwin Va.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
COMMON CARRIER AND DELIVERY.
Common carriers deliver property at
their peril, for if delivery be to the
wrong person they will be responsible
to the right owner. 1t is their duty,
therefore, in all cases, to be dili&nt in
their efforts to secure a delivery to the
person entitled, and they will be pro-
tected in refusing delivery until reason
able evidence is furnished them that
the party claiming is the party entitled,
so long as they act in good faith and
solely with view to proper delivery.
But it is their duty in all cases to BE-
diligent in their efforts to secure de-
livery TO the person entitled Balti