The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1883-12-15
COMNrERCTAL LAW.
Brief Digcsts of Late Decisions
Compiled Specially for the st. Louis Comnicr~
cial Gazettel
RIGHT OF BURIAL.

SiFS ehe NiSho OF burial OF a dead DOuY
TO the next Of kin of deceased adult
against her expressed request. There is
no law Which compels the next Of kin to
perform the duties of burial, and, there
lore, MS right TO bury can not arise as u
regal sequence from any obligation.
There is ample authority to show that
persons other than tho next of kin have
the right TO bury, because the law im-
poses upon them the duty. --Scott VS..
Riley etal., Philadelphia Court Common
Pleas.
There can be no property in q corpse.
Questions as to the custody and disposal
Of the dead are determined by such con-
siderations of propriety and justice as
arise out of the particular circumstances
of The case. Primarily, the dutyof suit
able interment rests on the executor or
administrator, but that duty must be ex-
ercised with due regard for tho wishes of
the nearest relatives Of the deceased,
and with the directions of the decedent, IL
any. Where the relations subsisting be-
tween husband and wife, and parent and
child are of a normal character, they
have respectively the right TO Diet, rhine,
to the exclusion of all others, the ques+
ton OF interment. In the absence OF
these relationships. the right belongs to
the next Of kin to the deceased. When
the husband, having this right, has once
exercised il and consented to the inter-
ment Of his deceased wife in certain
place, he can not. after the lapse Of
years, exhume the remains and re-inter
them in another place, whom its effect
would be to harrow the feelings of 9TH
ers and to disturb unnecessarily the re-
pose of the dead.-Fox VS.. Gordon,
Philadelphia Court Common Pleas.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Exemption from taxation does not ex-
empt from special assessments. The
constitution makes distinction between
taxation and such assessments While
1t provides that tho General Assembly
may exempt the property of the State,
counties and other municipalities from
the former, it makes no such provision
as to the latter. On the contrary, it au-
thorizes the Legislature to vest the corr
porate authority of cities, towns and
villages with power to make local inn
provements by special assessments
without any restriction MS TO the prop-
erty TO be assessed. While the State
may not authorize corporate authorities
to levy special assessments upon the
property of the United States, as It
would be an invasion of the rights of q
distinct sovereignty, no such reason ex-
lists as between the several agencies of
the State Government which are sub
jeet to its control and direction. 1t may
authorize burden TO be imposed on
one of its agencies to the extent it is
benefited by another agency, for the
benefit Of the whole public. County of
Mclean VS.. City of Bloomington, SUI
preme Court of Illinois.
LANDLORD AND TENANT
A tenant in possession is not estop-
ped by his parol agreement TO pay rent.
nor by his actual payment of 1t to an
other not in privity with his lessor, nor
having any interest in the premises,
under the belief that he is the proper
person TO receive it-from denying tho
latter's title While tenant can not
affect his landlords interest by accept
ing lease from another, he may by
accepting two leases of the same prem
ises for the same time estop himself
from denying the title of either. Yet
an exception to this rule is recognized
where the tenant already in possession
under the first accepts the second under
the belief, through fraud, artifiee or
mistake, that the second lessor Is privy
In the title with the first. Patterson vs..
Sweet, Appellate Court Of Illinois.
MUNICIPAL BONDS.
Where an ordinance of a city provided
for the issue of bonds on condition that
certain improvements were constructed
in good faith and in q good and sub
stantial manner, and there was fall
ure in the construction so that the works
were OF no value, the city may show
such failure as q defense TO a suit upon
the bonds. Such defense Is available in
an action at the suit of an assignor of
such bonds. The ordinance giving o
purchaser of the bonds notice Of the
terms on which they were issued, he
can not be held to be bona fide hold
Gritty of Ottawa VS.. Carey, U. s.
Supreme Court.
AGENCY BOND.
When a bond is executed to secure
the performances of duty by q person us
agent in specified business, and to Sc
cure from him due accounting for all
moneys received In such business, 1t is
incumbent on the obligee suing on the
bond to show breach of duty in the
business designated in the bond, or a
failure TO account for money received in
the course of such business. -McFall ct
al. VS.. Howe Mach. Co., Sup. ct. of Ind.
RIGHT OF WAY.
The purchaser of lot bounded upon
an unopened street is entitled to right
Of way over It, If 1t is Of the land of his
vendor, to its full extent and dimen-
sions only, until it reaches some other
street or public way. To this extent
will the vendor be held by the implied
covenant of his deed, and no further
-Huelsman VS.. Mills & Kline, Hamil-
ton County CO.. District Court.
NEGLIGENCE.
When the sole basis of liability is tho
omission to perform certain duty,
suddenly and unexpectedly arising,
there ought to be at least conscious
ness of the facts which raises the duty,
on the part Of the person who is charged
with its performance, and a reasonable
opportunity to discharge It'll. & M.
| p. r. r. Co. VS.. Kelley, Supreme
! Court o. Pennsylvania.