The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1884-02-15
COMMERCIAL LAW.


Brief Digests OF Late Decisisnss
Complied Specially for the Midland indus
trial Gazette. St. Louis, Mol
DEFECTIVE MACHINERY.
One Morrissey, while using machine
in his capacity of workman for a manu-
featuring company, acquired a knowl-
edge of its defects and consequent un-
sale condition. He complained OF its
condition to the foreman under whose
orders he was working and whose duty
it was to see that the machinery was
kept in good order and repair. The
foreman promised him to remedy said
defect and directed him to 90 to work
on the machine. The workman there
upon remained in the service of the
company and continued to use the ma
chine. In so doing he was injured
through the said defects before any
steps were taken to remedy the same.
Held that the workman's knowledge OF
the defects in the machine was not, I'M
der the circumstances and as q matter
of law, conclusive of contributory neg
ligence on his part, but it was fact in
the case to be taken into consideration
by the jury, with all the other facts and
circumstances, in determining the ques-
ton whether the workman's own negli-
gence contributed to the accident by
which he was injured. Manu-
featuring Company VS.. MorrisseJ.-
Supreme Court OF Ohio.
PARTNERSHIP.
Complainant was the surviving mem-
Der of firm and also the administrator
of the deceased partner. The firm and
| its members were insolvent. The com.
plainant, rs administrator, sold land as
the individual property of the decedent.
| The land was bid off for the defendant
who subsequently transferred his bid to
the complainant upon condition that
complainant should pay him a note
which he held against the insolvent
firm. Part of the amount thereof had
been paid. Complainant offered to COM
plete the contract and prayed for de-
cree compelling specific performances.
| Held that the contract set up would d.
vet assets from the proper course of
administration, and would be breach
OF trust and constructive fraud; part
nership assets being primarily liable for
firm debts. and individual assets for in.
| dividual debts, in cases of insolvency
and death.-Ragwell VS.. Bagwell, Su-
preme Court of Georgia.
| UsURY.
If usury is reserved in a note the
payee will only be entitled to recover
the amount due him when the contract
for usury was made. After a contract
to pay more than the legal rate of in
terest has been made subsequent
promise t. pay will not relieve the con-
tract of the taint of usury nor prevent
| the defense OF usury from being inter-
posed. An agreement to give stated
| sum in excess of the legal rate of inter-
| est, in consideration of the extension OF
the time Of payment, is as much in vio-
lation OF the statute against usury as
an agreement to pay 20 per cent. inter
| est. The statute can not be evaded by
| any shift or device. The law looks to the
| substance and not the form of the trans
action.--Leonard vs.. Patton, Supreme
Court of Illinois.
APPROVING OFFICIAL BOND.
A town clerk objected to bond of.
fered by the supervisor of the town,
but. upon the promise to get further Sc
curity, took the bond and put it on file
among the town papers, as such, and
permitted the supervisor to file his oath
Of office and discharge his official du-
ties. The promise was never fulfilled
! and the supervisor absconded. Held
that the bond was good and that the
clerk could not be heard to declare that
it was not accepted. The statute re-
quiring town clerk to approve a bond
was made for the security of the public
and not for the benefit of the bonds
men, and the sureties can not object
that the bond was not approved in the
manner provided by law.-Town OF
Ashkum vs.. Lake ct al, Appellate
Court of Illinois.
COMMON CARRIER.
A railroad company may be COM
PEELED by mandamus on behalf of the
people, represented by their attorney
general to furnish every requisite ia
cility for carrying passengers and
freight and to carry both in such man
ner and ut such times as the public
needs may require. This remedy of
the State by mandamus is not affected
by the fact that injured individuals have
their remedy by action for damage, &C.
casiOned by the failure of the carrier to
perform its public duty, and may be re-
sorted to whenever there is general
partial suspension of the duty of receiv.
ing and transporting freight. affecting
large numbers of people, People vs..
New York Central Railroad Company,
Supreme Court of New York.
MORTGAGE AND REDEMPTION.
When the holder of debt secured by
deed of trust assures the debtor,
though not in writing, that he may have
further time to pay the debt after fore
closure, and thereby induce him to let
the property be sold. when he, but for
such assurance, might have redeemed
before the sale, and the creditor ut such
sale acquires the legal title at less than
one-fOurth of its actual cash value, the
creditor will still hold such title as
mortgage for the payment of the debt
the same as before. and the debtor may
in equity redeem the property by paying
the sum due, with costs, etc. Union
Mutual Life Insurance Company vs..
White, Supreme Court of Illinois.
PARTNERSHIP AND NOTICE.
Publication of mott of the dissolu-
ron of partnership in newspaper at
the place where the business is carried
on is not sufficient tn relieve retiring
partner fiom liability for subsequent
transactions in the firm name with one
having dealings with the firm prior to
he dissolution. In such a case the
court held that motto, must be ought
home to the dealer. or it must appear
that facts came to his knowledge suffi-
cient to advise him. o. to give hira rea-
son to believe. that dissolution had