The Weekly Kansas chief. [volume] (Troy, Kan.) 1872-1918, 1883-05-24
COMMERCIAL LAW.
Brief Dizcsfs OF Late Decisions.


crnpiled specially for the St Louis
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT
Where u person deals bona fdc with an agent, Is
owner, without knowledge of his agency. he may set
of any claim he may have against the agent in ans
wer to the demand of the prineipal-Frame vs..
William Penn Coal Co, Supreme court of Penn
sylvania-
PRoNIsosRY NOTE
The body Of promissory note read thus: Eff
teen months after date promise to pay the order
of Richard Thompson - dollars the margin Of
were not sufficient to authorize the reformation of
the instrument 10 read n note for 800. The hg-
ures the margin of the note part of the in
They cannot supply the blank LETT for Insertion Of
the amount the maker agreed to pay. IL follows
that there can be recovery upon the note for il
is not promise to pay any sum.-Hollen vs. Davis,
Supreme Court Of Iowa
PUBLIc CARRIER.
carrier is not responsible for accidents which
could not have been avoided by the highest degree
Of care. SUCH for instance result from latent de-
fects of machinery, other similar causes.-Rich
ter VS.. the Steamer Mcfarland, United States Cir
cult Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
REcENERsHIP.
Where a receiver appointed by court is in
possession Of property, he is not answerable to
other court as To such property; and where the
property of which he was appointed receiver has
passed out Of his hands, he is not necessary party
TO a suit claiming lien still existing upon such
property, notwithstanding the proceedings under
which was appointed. Massachusetts Life Insurance
Company VS.. Chicago x Alton Railroad Company
ct al U. y Circuit Court Northern District OF Hill
nOis.
SATISFACTION OF NoKTGAGEs.
The rule of satisfaction of q mortgage according
to the inverse order of alienation does not apply
where the mortsased property is sold in bankrupt.
cy discharged of membranes, when the effect OF
the application of the rule would be TO deprive the
paramount lien creditor Of the proceeds of SALE In
such the latter is entitled to the fund and the
mortgage must seek some subrosation and indenl-
nifty in another proceeding. lnre CarOthers. bank
rupt L. 5. District Court Western District of Penn
sylyania.
SIGNING NoTE>
In an action upon a promissory note, the maker
set up his defense that he signed the note suPposng
it TO be only receipt for pillow sold TO hun by the
payee, and he testified that the agent Of the payee
assured him that the paper such receipt only,
and that, SO believing, he made his signature The
court held that he liable the note, and said
Where party, through neglect of precautions
within his power, afixes his name to that kind of
paper without knowing lis character the conse
quent loss ought not to be shifted from him TO an
rule, the facts which defendant offered to prove
would have been no defense. He signed the paper
voluntarily. He under no controlling necessity
to sign without taking such time night he needed
to inform himself of its character. One who, with
any necessity, misplaces his confidence ought
not to be heard to claim that the paper he is in Goa
sequence misled to sign should be taken out of the
rne protecting commercial paper-Maekey vs..
Paterson, Supreme Court Of Minnesota
TAX on TELEGRAPH MESSAGE.
A law of Texas required a telegraph company to
paw tax of cent for every fnllrate message sent,
and cent for every message less than full rate.
Held that the tax on messages sent out of the State
for the Government on public business, is erron
eous. That any tax which the State may put on
messages sent by private parties, and not by the
agents of the Government of the United States,
from one place to another exclusively within its
own jurisdiction will not be repugnant TO the Con
stitution of the United States-Wcstern Union Tel
egraph Company State of Texas. supreme Court
of United States.
TRADE MARI.
Manufacturers of crackers and biscuits filed a
bill to enOin another manufacturer from using the
word snowflake" to describe the crackers and bis
cults made by him. Complainants alleged that they
had used the word for more than two years prior TO
its use by defendant. Held that a name merely de
scrptve of article of trade, its qualities and
characteristics, can not be employed as trade
mark and the exclusive of it be entitled to pro-
lection. Snowflake, in its ordinary sense, is des
criptive of whiteness, lshtness and purity. When
applied 10 crackers, il affirms that they white,
light and pure. II signifies facts which others by
its use may express with equal TRUTH and therefore,
have equal right to its for that purpose Any
one has the right to make snowflake bseuit-that is,
such white, light aud pure.-larrabee VS.
Lewis, Supreme Court of Georgia
usURY
sealed release receipt in full settlement and
payment for all extra unlawful interest," execu-
ted at the time the money was loaned, and being
part of the transaction of borrowing IL not bar TO
the recovery of the usurious interest. If such de
vice this is allowed to prevail, resort would be
had to II in all cases and the statute be thereby
practically repealed. This is a very different
from releasing usury after mans embarrassments
have passed. and he has ceased TO be peculiar sub
ject for the protection of the stautc.-HCrrick vs.
Dean Supreme Court of Vermont.
VENDORS LIEN.
When real estate is sold to be fully paid for by
a given date, and deed and possession given, if the
yendee fails to make payment as he agreed he can
not retain possession In such the yender has
lien upon the land sold, and if he takes possession
under decree for a vendors lien he will be enti-
tied old il free of rent until payment is made.
Worries Smith, Supreme Court Of Colorado.
COMMON CARRIER.
The contract of plaintiff was with the defendant
carrier for hauling the loads of coal in
question from East st. Louis to the plaintiffs
yard in ST. Louis, and another railway company
was merely connecting carrier employed by de
PENDANT to complete the transit The coal was lost
in the hands of the connecting carrier. Held that
plaintiff had right of action against the defendant.
with whom II had the contract. Ii three carriers
Jointly agree TO perform n certain service, and
through the failure of them the service is not per-
formed. they jointly and seyeraly liable to the
person for whom they undertook the seryice.-Free
burg Coal Company Union Railroad Transit Co.,
st. Louis Court Of Appeals.