The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1883-12-08
COMMERCIAL LAW.
Brief Digests of Late Decisions.
Compiled Specially for the st. Louis CONNER
cial Gazette.l
VERBAL AND WRITTEN coNrRAcI

Action was brought on three promis-
gory notes executed by defendant to
plaintiff, being the purchase money of
tract of land which plaintiff sold to de-
fendant, who at the time executed back
a mortgage to secure their payment.
The mortgage contained power of sale
under which plaintiff, after the notes
became due, advertised and sold the
same and had it bought in for his
benefit. 1t was afterward agreed be-
tween them that if defendant would
surrender the possession of the premises
to the plaintiff he would cancel the
notes and release defendant from any
further liability. In pursuance of said
agreement defendant permitted plain
titf to take possession of the land and
waived his right to reclaim from the
sale under the mortgage. AS this con-
tract was not in writing, plaintiff in
sists that he was not bound by it. Held
that when parol agreement is eXecut-
ed, courts will not inquire into the con-
sideration nor disturb the position in
which parties have voluntarily placed
themselves. Where the contract is ac-
tually cancelled and the property sur
rendered, it is at an end, and the for
mality of a written release is unneces-
sary.-Russell VS.. Berkstresser, Su-
preme Court OF Missouri.
MISTAKE IN INSURANCE POLICY.
The owners of warehouse being in
debted to the plaintiff, agreed to insure
same against fire for his benefit, and ac-
oordingly agreed with the defendant for
such insurance, i'm their names, with loss
payable to the plaintiff But by mistake
the plaintiffs name was written in the
policy as the assured and as owner of the
property. A loss occurred within the
period of the risk, and after proof of
loss by the owners, and adjustment by
the defendant, the former assigned the
policy and their rights hereunder to the
plaintiff Hetd, that the equity of the
case was with the plaintiff and that he
was entitled to have the contract re-
formed, according to the true under
standing and purpose of the parties
thereto. Spare VS.. Home Nut. Ins Co.,
United States Circuit Court, District of
Oregon.
BEQUEsr.
A bequest of a sum to be paid 70 the
legatce annually for life out of the rents
accruing under lease named in the
will, 'if they fail not, does not author
ize an executor to reserve or accumulate
anything from the receipts of money in
one year to pay the annuity of the next.
Such legacy, however, will not be
construed to be confined to the actual
lease mentioned, unless that is the tes-
tator's plain intention. There being
an evident desire to provide for the leg-
atee fer life, and no special reason for
restricting her annuity to a fund re-
ceived from n particular person, the
language must be understood to indi-
cate the property as the source of in
come, rather than the identical contract
then in force.-Gaylord's executors VS..
Gaylord, Supreme Court of Pennsyl-
vania.
ACCEPTANCE.
Action upon a bill of exchange was
brought by appellee against appellant
and one Dickey. The appellee was the
drawer of the bill and also the payee
named therein. The appellant and
Dickey were the drawees, and each in
dorsed on the bill his unconditional ac-
ceptance. Held, that by so doing ap-
lpellant and Dickey became severally.
liable for the payment of the bill and
that appellant, having voluntarily
placed himself in this position, could
not plead Il want of consideration for his
acceptance vs.. Brlnker, Supreme
Court OF Colorado.
An attorney can not, without the con-
sent of the client, express or implied,
become the purchaser of lands sold un-
der a Judgment which he has recovered
and controls for his client. If he does
so purchase, he becomes, like any other
agent, trustee for his principal. Such
a trust arises by operation of law and
continues to exist until barred by
lapse of time, or until terminated by an
election to ratify the purchase, thereby
giving validity.-Pearce VS.. Gamble u
Boiling, Supreme Court of Alabama.
CONTRACT AGAINST COMPETITION.
Where appellee for consideration
sold out his interest in furniture busi-
ness to appellant, his partner, and by
the same contract agreed that he
''would not commence again or work for
any other person in the same business,
in said village" it was heLd that in an
action for damages for breach of this
contract, appellant could not recover
for prospective damages as they subse-
lquently accrued from day to day and
time to time.-Just VS.. Greve, Appel
late Court of Illinois.
FRAUD AND TITLE.
The title of a purchaser of property
for value can not be defeated by proof
that his vendor acquired title by fraud
ulent representations, unless the pur-
chaser be connected with the fraud.
His presence in the store of the vendor
where his goods were on sale, and his
assisting in packing them for storage
will not draw him into the fraud by
which his vendor acquired title.-Stein-
metz VS.. Matlack and Wife, Philadel-
phia Court of Common Pleas.
BANK STOCK AND LIEN.
There is no such thing as a common
law lien on stocks in favor of a corpora
tion for debt due it by a shareholder.
A bank which is not bank of issue can
not claim lien on shares of one of its
stockholders by way of sct-oif for an in
debtedness of his to the bank, where
there is not special provision in its
charter giving it that right. .--Mer-
chants Bank of Easton VS.. Shouse, SUI
preme Court of Pennsylvania.
LEGAL TENDER.
A tender, to be legal one, must be
for the full amount due, and when once
made, to be effectual, must be kept up
at every stage of the action. The rule
that the money must be counted down
in gold or silver or legal tenders is dis
xryith tI,a To, tS,