The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1884-05-09
CoN,rERCIAL LAY.
Brief Digests of Late Decisions.
Compiled Specially for the Midland Indus
trial Gazette. St Louis. Mol
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS.

trial Gazette. St Louis, MOL
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS.
Carran VS.. Little, carried to the SUI
preme curt tommi sion of Ohio,
VIII ch affirmed the decision ofthe lower
court, was a case involving the nego-
liability OF draft on the i Tr asurer
Of Cleveland for the quarterly salary of
the City solicitor, given TO . third par
ty who endorsed anne and had it dis
counted by fourth par y, and not be-
ing paid, the City Soil it having
died sefore the end of I've quar-
ter suit was brous bit on a, endor ement
and Judgment recovered. The Judge
rendering the opinion sail: The defend
ant claims that this DRAFT is M rely an
assignment OF an unearned sa,ary for a
ceria quarter, and being drawn on
the city treasurer was PAYABLE out of
the salary of h. drawer, and being
thus payable oat Of a particular fund
was not negot able. Whether the
drawer made an assignment only of g
salary or bill change depends
upon his intention, as it can be ascer-
tanned from the pa er itself, to make
him elf personally liable. An ord r to
pay money out of particular 1und is
not a bill of ex .hange, bat an order to
pay with directions to the drawee how
he may re mburse hims elf is bill of
ex hanse. Is there enough in this
draft to indicate the intention of !.
the drawer to make himself
Liable? He made his draft ON
s. L. E.. directing h m to pay the
amount Of it and charg the same to his
quarters 81 airy or de -igna;ed quar-.
ter the future. and waive demand
an protest 1t is quite clear ON the
waiver OF demand and prot st that the
d aver contemplated COZ t,nrIing La
bill ty on his part. The bill is really
one drawn on E.; the desig istinn
sci y treasurer is merely personal
dec Upton, and the direction to charge
the amount to his qua ter's salary is
nothi g more than a rection to the
draw Ow to re mburse b mself. Tne
drawer had no auth r t. t, d aw on f.
rs City Treasurer, nor had Z. authority
by reason of the draf to p v to any one
the amount stated in tn draft, or any
am III. as the salary of the drawee. His
salary could be paid by the drawee only
n the order of the proper o.hcer OF the
city.
CONSIGNMENT OF GoODs-ATTEMPTED-
FRAUD OF BUYER-REPLEvIN
BY CONSCIENCE.
Wagons were mad in Cincinnati and
sent the &c to Mic igan. Tie bill of
ladin to tle purcha er was attached
to the dra t sent to the 10 al bank for
collect on. The D ha er ap. ed to-
no hn nh for
wagons. and then emoved them % his
store. where he Undertook to sell them.
The Pre- ihent OF the bank attached the
Gods in the name of maker. tut It be-
NO shown hat this w done without
authority tic suit wa $ Ont.n ed, the
attachment dissolved and the roperty
return ed % the p r ha er. The bank
then paid the draft and bruu- hit an
action OF repievin, and upo it got udg-
ment. The purchaser carr ed tie ase,
West Michigan Savings LaDk vs.. How
ard to the Supreme Court of
Michigan, where the judgment
was a.iil med. Judge Campbell in the
opinion said: The payment of he d ait
was not made upon the behalf of the
defendant. and we see NO re ,son why
the bank has not the same right now
that it Won have had if the draft had
been cashed it on receipt. It repre-
senled the debt on the pawn Mt of
which the bank was author. zed to de-
Ii er the property, and it was practi-
ca'ly bailee of the pro erty TO obtain
the payment and hold it until paid.
We thinS that whet er it paid the
make of the draft in advance. or not
Iafo,yront
co not ls.wfuliy hold the property
sold against it or the manufacturers of
he agons. In our OPP MON the TIA s.
action was su b as to CIV. the ank all
the ri hts of tie owners of the wagons
had 10 them. Sue dealin s can not re
subjected to any tee meal n celies, but
must be decid,d on common sense,
grounds.
INsURANCE-M S 'EPIESENT or.
A policy Of insurance issued on per-
sonal prope ty on Decemb r tn. Is =,
contained clause that special survey
and appli alton made to different
com "a, Y, dated Febr AIRY, I'd, 1873,
should form rart thereof and a war
ran V on the part Of the assured of the
conditions, 81 uation or cupancy of the
property, and ma ing the POI cy void
TO: any ON sSion to make known every
tact material to the risk. On Ju Y tn,
1873. the Injured had e ecuted chat
til mortgage on the prop .rty. viii b
las suisse uently burned and suit
Brought for amount in ured. In this
case. William : hroeier VS.. he Ira
ders' Insura &c Company, the Supreme
curt of ii inOis rev, rsed The decision of
lower court, no ding that the rep e.
sentation and warrant had reference to
the facts and the condition of the prop
ertv at the date OF. the applicat on and
not that of the issue of the policy in
December 49,, and hence was NO
breach of the warranty against incum-
ORANGES.
rRUsTEE-DUTY TO SELL PROPERTY AT
BEST PRICE.
The Supreme Court of Illinois in the
case of H. +. Eames ct al, VS.. i. n.
Hardin ct al holds that a trustee must
alwa 5 be neld 10 strict accuun ability
for the ma arement Of the trust fu DIS
in his hands. If trust is simply t.
sell and acco N. for the proc ed, he
u ,ust use all reasonable .orts and wait
reas nable line to pro ure the best
price thai can be reali ed by all reason
abb. efforts. Eut when the trustee holds
the property as curity for deb, due
him from the cestui que trUs, and the
none is due and unpaid. the ustee $
not re ;uire,I to wait the same leDgt of
me or prices tina he W II d. if SIMPLY
a max d trustee without any interest in
C land.
SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY.