The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1883-09-15
COMMERCTAL LAW.


Compiled Specially for the ST. Loais CONNER
cial GazetteAl
ai FIRE INSURANCE..
February ?, 1880, plaintiff negotiated
with, an insurance company's local
agent at Shenandoah for six months
insurance of building in that town,
giving goods and his note for the pre-
MUM. The next night the building
was burned down, The application and
note of plaintiff werc received by the
company ON the 9th, and were rejected
by the secretary, the reason assigned
being that the company already had as
much insurance in the row where the
building had stood as It cared for 1t
did not appear that the agent had au-
thority to give or did give q binding re-
ceipt There was no evidence 10 show
that at the time of the rejection Of the
application the company was aware
that the property had been burned.
Held, that the plaintiff did not have
sufficient cause Of action. -Armstrong
VS.. the State Insurance Company OF
Des Moines, Supreme Court Of Iowa.
FIXTURES.
Whether chattel becomes fixture or
not does not depend 20 much npon the
character of the fastening by which It is
held down whether slight or otherwise)
as upon the nature Of the article, and lis
use as connected with the use OF the
freehold. As between the mortgageor
and mortgages, the true criterion ccp-
sists in the united application Of several
tests; |. Real or constructive annexa-
ton of tho article In question TO the
realty 2. Appropriation or adaptation
to the use or purpose Of that part Of tho
realty with which II Ia connected, 5.
The Intention OF the party making the
annexation to make tho article per-
manent accession to the freehold. this
intention being inferred from the ma
ture OF the article affixed, the relation
and situation of the party making the
annexation, and the purpose or use for
which the annexation has been made
Thomas vs.. Davis, Sup, Ct. Of Mo.
PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY AND ExEMf-
TTON.
The purpose Of the statute Of exemp-
tions Is 70 prevent persons, especially
heads Of families, when overtAken by
pecuniary rpverses, from being reduced
TO an ablect state Of restitution. IL Is
TO enable such persons 20 start anew the
winning Of q livelihood, and 10 prevent
their becoming public charge or bur-
den. II IL not to be supposed that the
legislature inteEded that the evils TO
avert which this statute was enacted
should be without prevention or remedy
merely because the means Of avoid
ance consisted of partnership and not
Of individual assets, The reason, for the
exemption exists with preclselyas much
force In one case rs in the other. The
-
10 partnership interests are not COM
parable with the evils which the statute
designed to avoid. Matter OF Yolun-
tary Assignment.of Hall and another,
County Court of Cook County, Illinois
.1' AGENCY.
A broker who was not intrusted with
with the possession of the property,
contracted In his own name to sell the
same to q vendee, who had no knowI-
edge that the broker was not the real
owner, but dealt with him as such. The
broker notified his principals that he
had Aold for them, and directed when
to ship the property to. the purchaser.
The owners, without any knowledge
that the broker had contracted In his
own name, and without any conduct ON
their part clothing the broker with au-
thority TO receive payment forthem, or
any possession, actual or constructive,
Of The property, delivered the same to
the yendeB. Held, that payment by the
purchaser to the broker, under such
circumstances, Is not barsto the right
OF recovery by the owners, Hill VS..
Crosby, Supreme Court Of Ohio.
HUSBANDS DEEa TO WIRE.
! It Is trOc, deed from o husband d.
rectly to his wife is nullity at common
law But under modern legislation
and the application of equitable prIn-
eiples wide departure has been made
from the common law in respect to the
ability of wife TO acquire and hold
property. Her right IQfl acquisition
and power Of control are not restricted
to property obtained from one not her
husband. When not in fraud of cred
itors of the husband, q conveyance
from him directly to his wife may be
sustained on equitable principles.
Thompson VS., Allen ct al, Supreme
Court Of Pennsylvania.
TRADE-MARK. 1871 81
The object of trade mark being TO
indicate, by its meaning or association,
the origin or ownership Of The articles,
1t would seem that when right to its
use is transferred to others, either by
act of the original manufacturer OF by
operation of law, tho fact of transfer
should be stated in connection with its
use. Otherwise deception would be
practiced upon the public, and the very
fraud accomplished. to prevent which
courts of equity interfere TO protect the
exclusive right Of the original manufae-
tifrer. Manhattan Medicine Company
vs. Wood, Supreme Court Of United
| States.
RAILWAY OCCUPANCY OF LAND WITHOUT
CONFIRMATION.
After n railroad company has COM
pleted its track through the property Of
a citizen, without legal objection made
thereto or assessment of damages there
for, an injunction should not be granted
to stop the running of its trains until
damages be assessed and paid One
can not stand by and suffer another to
expend money to large amounts on his
land, as part of great system of inn
provement. and then stop by injunction