The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1884-08-30
COMMERCIAL LAW.
Brief Digeats of Late Declssons.
Compiled Specially for the st. Louis CONNER
cial Gazette.l
NEGLIGENT SIGNING OF NOTE.


Action was brought by the indorsee
of note, payable In bank, against the
maker. The defense was that two men
agreed with defendant to put lightning
rod on her dwelling-house for certain
sum. After the rod had been put up one
Of the men drew note for her TO sign,
representing that 1t was for the amount
agreed upon. He read note for the
sum then mentioned, which she signed.
The defendant was unable to read writ
ing. She relied wholly on the repre-
sensations Of the person who drew the
note. There was no one at her house
who could read writing except the men
who rendered her the note. Her nearest
neighbors were at q considerable dis
lance from her. She believed the note
in suit was the one. She did not have
time TO go and get them to read the note
to her. She signed, believing It TO be
for the sum agreed upon, and she never
intended to execute such a note as the
one In suit appeared to be, 1t being for
q sum many times the amount for which
Gas she understoodl she had given her
note. Held, that these facts made no
good defense, but brought the case with
In the rule that the maker of q promis-
sorry note, payable 10 order in n bank
and negotiable rs an inland bill OF ex-
change, is liable to an indorsee for value
before maturity, II such maker was
guilty Of negligence in failing to use
reasonable care TO inform himself Of the
contents Of such note. Yeagley vs..
Webb, Supreme Court Of Indiana.
PAYMENT TO BROKER by PURCHASER.
A broker who was not intrusted with
| the possession Of the property, con-
tracted in his own name TO sell the same
to vendee who had no knowledge that
the broker was not the real owner but
dealt with him as such. The broker
notified his principals that he had sold
for them and directed where to ship the
property to the purchaser. The own.
ers, without any knowledge that the
broker had contracted In his own name,
and without any conduct on their part
clothing the broker with authority to re-.
ceive payment for them, or any posses
sion, actual or constructive, Of the prop.
erty, delivered the same TO the yendee.
Held that payment by the purchaser to
the broker, under such circumstances,
is not bar TO the right Of recovery by
the owners. Crosby VS.. Hill, Supreme
Court OF Ohio.
PARTNERSHIP AND EXEMPTION.
One partner, with the consent of the
others. may claim separate exemption
out of partnership which has been
seized on an execution against the firm.
The consent of the partners that each
should have and select an exemption
out Of the partnership proper, after a
levy thereon, amounts TO severance
Of the Joint property, and the several
right of each attaches to the portion by
him selected. A demand by each part
ner for such an exemption will be
deemed a consent that the others have
and select the same. In such case there
is o sufficient demand II the partner
informs the officer making the levy that
he claims his exemption and that the
other partners do the same, and asks
, permission TO make his selection
: O'Gorman VS.. Fink, Supreme Court OF
, Wisconsin
CONTRACT AND DELIVERY.
1t is an essential prerequisite that q
I deed, lease or other Instrument shodld
1 be understood by the parties to be com.
! pleted and ready for delivery, In order
to have mere placing Of II In the hands
q or possession Of the grantee or his agent
! construed into delivery. The delivery
" Of written contract Is Indispensable K
!. It's binding effect, and such delivery i
not conclusively proved by showing
i, the placing Of the paper BY the alleged
y contracting party In the hands OF thu
other. Delivery is question Of inten
and It depends on whether the parties
0 at the time meant it TO be a delivery T.
70 take effect presently. Jordan vs.. Davi
ct al, Supreme Court OF Illinois,
. ACCIDENT INSURANCE..
! Under q policy Of insurance agains
a accident, providing that no claim shal
. be made under 1t when the death or IN
y jury may have happened in conse
quence Of exposure To any obvious o
:, unnecessary danger, and containing
q condition that the assured Is required I
e use all due diligence for personal safet
a and protection, no recovery can be ha.
Is for the death of the assured which
= caused by his being struck by railroa
train while running along the tracks
IS front of it in the night time, for the pui
ne pose Of getting on train approachin
ir in an opposite direction on parable
e track. futile VS.. Insurance Co., 81
ID preme Court of Massachusetts.
ASSIGNMENT OF WAGES,
y; An assignment in good faith OF wag'
p to be earned under an existing contra'
rs is valid against a garnishment subs
- duent in time. provided the garnishs
= have such notice of the assignment
q; will enable him to disclose it In b
~ y. affidavit and thus avoid being charge
n nc -Tiernay vs.. MCCARTHY, Sup. CT, X.
:" AGREEMENT TO BID.
IL An agreement by the bondholder
~. stockholders and unsecured creditors
s ss bid at a foreclosure sale of railroad,
] that the property would not be sac
! : feed, is not a fraudulent agreemeT
mi and the sale will not be set aside on th
~. ~ account.-Penn. Transportation Co
H IL, Appeal, Supreme Court OF Penn.
m. NATIONAL BANK.
it'll A national bank has power to Ie
,ir, money upon the note or other persoI
lfi- obligation Of the borrower secured
ne. the pledge Of o warehouse receipt
ed, merchandise as collateral security
hat Cleveland VS.. First National Bank,
us preme Court Of Ohio,