The Penn's Grove record., 1883-05-05
Recent Legal Decisions.

OUs INSOLVENCY OF MAKER-TITLE
no PROCEEDS OF SALE. " Co., of
New Orleans, were sued in attach
ment, and their establishment was
seized at half-past 10 O'Clock A. NJ,
New Orleans time, on November 80,
1881. The action was brought by local
creditors upon a demand for S5035, of
which $500 became due November 90,
1881, and the balance December 10,
1891. III. of New York, owned a
note of L. & Co., which brokers sold
to the Hanover National Bank after IL
O'Clock A. M. OF November 20, 1881,
and on information being received of tho
attachment the same day, the bank
demanded the proceeds Of the sale of
the note from the brokers, and Ii. also
claimed it. In this case-Harris VS..
Hanover National Bank-in the Uni
ted States Circuit Court, Southern
district of New York, Judge Coke, in
deciding in favor of the bank, said !:
! ''The bank is entitled to the money.
The almost unbroken line of authority
seems to establish the doctrine that if
bills of a broken bank or the notes of
a party who has previously failed are
transferred in payment of a debt, both
parties being ignorant of the failure and
innocent of fraud, the creditor may
repudiate the payment upon a tender
of the d~ishonored note and recover the
amount due. 1t is a mutual mistake
of fact. The plaintiff contends that,
contemplation of law, the attachment
did not imply either the insolvency or a
failure of L. & Co. The attachment
was granted on the ground that /. &
Co. were disposing Of their property
with the intent to defraud their credit
ors. They were unable to meet their
obligations as they fell due, and suffered
their property to be taken on a charge
of fraud, which was not denied, and
they were legally if not actually |
insolvent. The questions in this action
are by no means free from ~perplexities
and doubt, but the weight of authority |
seems to uphold the positions taken by
the defendant. H ~
INTOXICATING LfQUoRs-NU1sANcE
I-RIGHT OF PRoPERTY.-D had oil
keeping a liquor saloon in his name
fC's) for him, and M, who had an exc
cution against G., caused it to be levied
on the liquors. ID brought replevin
against M and took theIiquors, but on
the trial of the action the Court held
that the liquors being for sale by Cl
were, under the statute, a nuisance, and
directed that they be returned to M, ,
The plaintiff carried the case-Donohue
VS.. Maloney-to the Supreme Court of
Errors of Connecticut on the ground
that the statute applied only to liquors
seized IS nuisance by legal proceeds
ings. Judge Pardee, in deciding against
the plaintiff, said 1.-The statute de-
clares that all Intoxicating liquor, in
tended by the owner or keeper thereof
to be sold in violation of law, shall,
with the vessels in which it is contained,
be a nuisance 1t is the plain intent of
the statute to remove all temptation to
the illegal keeping and selling of intoxi-
eating liquors, and to accomplish this by
making these acts Improbable. To
that end it is framed of language which
is in all inclusive-which does not adj
nit of the limitation claimed. The
plaintiff having made these liquors a
nuisance, he cannot use the process of
| the Courts to ecove them, for they
will not be recognized as property u"
PARTNERsHIP-REAL ESTATE PUR-
CHASED FOR FIRM INDIVIDUAL
CREDIToRs.-Land was bought by a
| firm with its funds and used for part
nership purposes. 1t made an assingn-
ment, and in the distribution of the
| proceeds of the sale of the land individ-
ual creditors claimed a dividend. In
this case-Spaulding VS.. Wilson-the
, Court of Appeals of Kentucky decided
III tdNuI VI VIC CiCuit'io vi thO liz.
Judge Prior, in the opinion, said
Real estate purchased with the firm
funds and for partnership purposes be-
comes partnership property. 1t is OBJ
jected here that as 800 acres of land
were bought, upon which the firm ran a
distillery, that portion of the land which
vas not necessary to the distillery
ought to be regarded as a mere incident
to the running of the distillery. This
might be convincing If the land had
not been purchased with the partner
ship funds and used for partnership ur-
poses. Its products were all applied in
that way, and besides, the partners seem
to have been doing an extensive bust,
ness in buying land, stock, ETC., and
why the land should not constitute a
part of the partnership assests under
such circumstances is a question not
easily answered. If the land is not an
incident to the ~distillery, the latter may
be an incident to the land"
NAvIGABLE RIVERS - IMPROVE
MENTs BY STATE-ToLLs.-The Canal
Commissioners of Illinois, in pursuance
of State statutes providing for the
construction of locks and dams on the
Illinois river, had the locks and dams
built and established the payment of
certain tolls; and merchants who ran
steamboats, on that river filed a bill in
equity-Hase VS.. Glover-inthe United
States Circuit Court, Northern district
of Illinois. for an injunction to restrain
the exaction of tolls at the locks. Mr..
Justice Harlan, in deciding against the