The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1884-06-14
COMmERCrAL LAW.
NEdoTIABLE INSTRUMENTS,

NEHO1lAbLE INSTRUMENTS.
Carran vs.. Little, carried to the Su-
preme Court Commission of Ohio.
which affirmed tho decision oltha lower
court, was y case involving the nego-
liability OF draft on the | y Treasurer
Of Cleveland for the quarterly salary OF
the City Solicitor, given to q third par.
ty who endorsed anne and had Il dis
counted by fourth par v, and not be-
ing paid, the City Soil it1r having
died kefore the end OF the quar-
ter suit was brought on an endor eTnent
and Judgment recovered The Judge
rendering the opinion said: The defend
ant claims that this draft Is merely an
assignment OF an unearned salaryior
certain quarter, and being drawn ON
the city treasurer was PAYABLE out of
the salary Of ho drawer, and being
thus payable out Of particular fund
was not negot able. Whether the
drawer made an assignment only Of his
salary or Il bill o change depends
upon his intention. as II can be ascer-
tanned from the paper itself, TO mako
him elf personally liable. An order To
pay money out OF particular fund Ii
not bill Of exchange, but an order to
pay with directions TO the drawee how
he may re mburse himself is q bill OF
exchange. Is there enough In this
draft to indicate the intention OF
the drawer to make himself
liab.ep He made his draft on
5. T. E., directing h m to pay the
amount Of Il and charge the same to his
| quarters sa AIRY Tor designated GUAR
ter Ia the future, and waive demand
and protest 1t Is quite clear from the
waiver Of demand and protest that the
| drawer contemplated continuing liza
billy on his part The bill In really
| one drawn on E.; the designation
''ci'y treasurer is merely a personal
description, and the direction to charge
the amount TO his quarters salary Is
nothing more than a direction to the
draw how to reimburse himself. The
drawer had no authority TO draw on Il.
as City Treasurer, nor had II. authority
by reason Of the draft to pay to any one
the amount stated In the draft, or any
amount us the salary of the drawee. His
salary could be paid by the irawee only
on the order of the proper officer Of the
city.
CONSIGNMENT OF GooDs-ATTEMPTED
FRAUD OF BuYER-RErLEvIN
BY coNsraNEF.
| Wagons were made in Cincinnati and
sent thence to Mic igan. The bill of
lading to the purcha or was attached
| TO the draft sent TO the local bank for
collection. The pur haser appl ed to
the bank for leave TO exam ne the
wagons, and then iemoved them TO his
| store, where he undertook 10 sell them.
The Pre- ident of the bank attached this
| goods in the name Of maker, but it be-
| ing shown that this was done without
| authority the suit was lis ontinued, the
attachment dissolved and the property
returned TO the purchaser. The bank
then paid the draft and brought an
action Of replevin, and upon tgot iudg-
ment. The purchaser carried the case
West Michigan Savings bank vs.. How
ard, 10 the Supreme Court Of
Michigan, where the Judgment
was affirmed, Judge Campbell IN the
| opinion said; The payment Of the draft
was not made upon the behalf Of the
| defendant. and we see no reason why
| the bank has not the same right now
| that 1t would have had If tile drift had
been cashed b. II on receipt. II repre-
sented the debt ON the payment of
which the bank was authorized to de-
/ liver the property, and IL was practi-
cally a bailee Of the property to obtain
the payment and hold Ii until paid.
We think that whether II paid the
| maker Of the draft In advance or not
| could not concern the defendant, who
coil not lawfully hold the property
sold against it or the manufacturers Of
/ The wagons. In our opinion the trans
/ auffa atst+A aat 10, s4trr 4kn ns.E eli
| the RE hts Of the owners Of the wagons
had to them. SUCH dealings can not ne
subjected to any tec nical niceties, but
must be decided on common sense
grounds.
ooNTRACT-vEsTED INTEREST.
A. executed paper desc ibed on It's
face as an agreement with his son 10
sell him parcel Of land, but which
provided that A. should retain possess
sion while he lived, and that, after his
death, the son should have possession,
the consideration being he sum Of five
dollars and certain covenants, some to
be performed after AS death. Upon
AS death, suit was brought upon his
will and writ of ejectment granted rs
to the parcel of land in dispute. Car
red to the Supreme Court of Pennsyl-
vania, the Judgment OF the court below
was reversed, the decision holding at
the instrument was contract, creating
vested right to be enjoyed in possess
sion in future, and not viii revocable
during life.
TAXABLE.
The Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania
in the case Of the City of Erie VS.. The