The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1883-12-19

70 furnish his portion of the capital and
TO adjust the matter agreed to take out
policy of insurance for the benefit of
L. The policy was issued and delivered
70 D.. who retained it until the dissolu-
ton of the partnership, when he hand
ed 1t to l.. to ''show that he intended to
90 what was right. ID. paid the first
two premiums and L. the rest The
application was signed by-L. and D.,
and the policy, in consideration of a
sum paid by L., insured the life of D.,
and promised to pay the ''said assured"
etc. 1t was declared to be accepted by
the assured upon condition that the
person ''whose life is hereby insured"
etc. Held that there is no distinction
necessarily involved by the terms lin
Surod" and ''assured." The parties
70 whom they refer must generally de-
pend on the collOcation and the con-
text. Here the term assured" refer
red to the party for whose benefit the
policy was procured. The insurable in
tsrest of l.. was sufficient to support
the policy. The transaction having
been made in good faitl. statements of
ID. as to the amount OF his interest in
the life Of L., though they might appear
- excessive, will not be O breach of
warranty where, as in th, case, no
definite value could be assigned to such
partnership interest.-Conn. Mutual
Life lns. Co vs.. Luchs, u. 5. Supreme
Court.
NEGOTIABLE PAPER.
BY the rules of the law merchant. the
purchaser of negotiable paper PAYABLE
70 order, unless it be indorsed by the
payee, takes it subject to any defense
which the payor has against the payce
de becomes in such case only the
equitable owner of the debt or claim
evidenced by the security. As general
rule the legal title to negotiable paper
payable to order passes only bv the
PAyee's Endorsement on the security
Itself, or on piece of paper so attached
% the original instrument as, in effect.
70 become part of it or Incorporated
In t. Words of assignment and trans
Ter contained in separate instrument,
executed for q wholly distinct and separ-
ate purpose, are not equivalent to an in
dorsement within the settled rule of the
law merchant. A subsequent indorse-
ment, made after notice of the payor =
defense, although the paper was pur-
chased without notice of defense, will
not relate back to the time of purchase
90 rs to cut off the equities of the pavor
against the payee.-Osgood's Admins
traitor vs.. Artt, U. S. Circuit Court, n.
ID. illinois.
ASSIGNMENT.
Where stock of goods was levied on
by an attaching creditor who had pur-
chased all debts preferred in the assign
ment, and said stock of goods was in the
hands of the assignee by virtue of a valid
assignment, beb that the goods were not
subject to the levy as the title was in the
assignee for the purpose of the trust.
Held also that, as the assignment was
valid 1t is doubtful whether the attach
ing creditors could plead as an offset
against the assignee in a suit for the
real value of the goods seized, the
amount OF their debt and those acquired.
II IL could be so allowed, it would only
b In the event that there was ample re-
naming in the hands of the assignee to
ttsfy the claims OF all persons who
sSpnld claim under the assignment.-
Allen vs.. Willis & Bro. ct al, Supreme
Court Of Texas.
PRINTED SIGNATURE.
A memorandum is, under the ST tatute
Of frauds, sufficiently 'signed' by the
name being printed on letter-6ead,
the contract being underwritten. In
thiB decision the court cited an Ameri-
can case to the effect that the place of
the signature in the memorandum is
1nnmatertal, and also extracted from the
English authorities the doctrine that
she name may as we'll be printed as
written, if the printed name is adopted
by the party to be charged, and hence
concluded that there was sufficient
signing II the name were in print and
in any part of the instrument. provided
that the name was recognized and ap-
proPriated by the party to be his
Drury VS.. Young, Supreme Court of
Maryland.
INsURABLE INTEREST.
Al a rule the insured must have an
tnSurable interest both at the inception
Of the contract aud at the time of loss.
But such interest exists whenever its
destruction would involve pecuniary
loss either 70 himself or others for whom
he acts. 1t is enough that he has the
care or possession of the property, to
authorize an insurance for the benefit of
the owners, which they may ratify after
the loss. The burden of showing a
want of insurable interest is on the
oomPany.-Sheppard VS.. Peabody Ins.
Co.. Supreme Court of w. Virginia.
CONSIDERATION OF CONVEYANCE.
A conveyance from husband to wife
based upon an ante-nuptial agreement
by which the husband agreed to secure
70 the wife the amount received by him
from her, was based upon a sufficient
confederation and was not fraudulent
80 to creditors although not made until
after the husband became embarrassed.
In this case it was not pretended that
the property conveyed was worth more
than the husband had already received
from the ewife.-Norsworthy VS.. Sparks,
kentucky Court Of Appeals.
NUISANCE AND HIGHWAY.
Il Is not nuisance per Sc for a pri-
VAte citizen acting under municipal
license to dig trench in public high
way for the purpose of laying a water
pipe, and it is not such an act as rem
dsrS parties engaged in it guilty of q
public wrong. The entire execution of
laying the pipe being committed as an
independent employment to a contract
or, the employer is not responsible for
the mode of such execution.-Smith VS..
simmons and Wife, Supreme Court Of
PennsylVania-
LIEN FOR FREIGHT.
A common carrier of freight has a
lan ,nnou aaah ahinmanf 40 Ioao. - "a