The Red Cloud chief., 1884-02-22
COMMERCIAL LAW.


Sslef Digests of Late Decisions.
ICompiled Specially for the Midland Indus
trial Gazette, ST. Louis, Mol
RAILWAY AND PASsENGER-DAMAGES.
Plaintiff purchased at n station on
the railway a ticket to another station,
the ticket agent assuring her that the
train would stop ct that station. h
conductor of the train, which was q
through express t o a point beyond the
station to which the plaintiff desired
to 90, refused to stop at that station,
but carried her through to the terminus,
where she was obliged to procure a car
riage for her destination. Held that the
company was responsible for the mis-
take or instruction of the statiOn-mas-
Ter. but not for the refusal of the cOn-
ductor, and that the measure OF DAM
ares was the sum paid by her to return
from the terminus to the intermediate
station, the value of her time n the
| Inconvenience she suffered.-Marshall
vs.. NJ. p. X. K. Co., Supreme Court OF
Missouri.
LARCENY AMI EMBEZZLEMENT.
The felonious appropriation OF goods
bv q servant or agent who has merely
the custody of them, is larceny. Where
he has the manual possession OF the
goods. his %feloniOus appropriation OF
| them is enlightenment. Generally,
where the agent has received goods VI
money to carry, deliver, control OF
manage for his principal, unless he
parts with the manual possession and
delivers the property to his principal,
or to another for him, Of places 1t IN
some depository, such rs Il drawer OF
safe provided for the purpose and to
which the principal OF superior agent
has access, or over which they have
control, he can not be convicted of lar
ceny for felonious appropriation Of the
goods or money. The Otfense is EN-
bezz!ement.-W armoth vs.. the Com
monwealth, Kentucky Court of APP
peals.
A husband and wife jointly executed
a will which disposed of property OF
which the husband was the sole owner.
Upon the death of the husband the
Judge of Probate refused probate of the
will unit the death of the wife, as it
was a Joint instrument. Nothing
further was done until nine years after
the death Of the testator. Held that
the ioinder of the wife had n o effect up
on the legal force of the will, and all
her acts and declarations were to be re-
garded as surplusage. Also that be-
cause the will was not probated within
three wears after the death of the tesla
Tor, as required by statute. the estate
devised did not descend to the heirs of
the testator.-Allen vs.. Allen, Supreme
Court of Kansas.
PREFERRED STOCK
Where certificates of preferred stock
of a railway company provided among
other things that the preferred stock
was TO be and remain q first claim up
on the property of the company after its
indebtedness-held that the preferred
stockholders had no claim on the prOD-
erty superior to that of creditors under
debts contracted by the company sub
s%equentlv to the issue of the preferred
stock, and that their only valid ella m
was one to q priority over the holders OF
common stock.-Warren VS.. King. SUI
preme Court L. S.
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.
A principal who refuses TO pay a debt
and who buys the surety's land at . sale
under an execution aga INST both. can
not hold the land as against the surety
and compel the surety to pay the debt
which he himself should have pad. In
such a case. rs between the principal
and surety, the principal merely pays
his debt to the amount of his bid and
equity requires that the surety shall
hold the land unclouded " such 4 pur-
chase.-Madgett VS.. Fleener, Supreme
Court Of Indiana.
CLERK OR AGENT AS PARTNER.
Where q clerk or agent is by arree.
ment to receive a fixed portion of prof
its as compensation for his time or In.
Dor, he does SO as clerk or aren't and
as partner. But where one adj
RANGES money under an agreement that
he principal is to be refunded. but for
he is to share in the net
of the adventure, this makes
him a partner, for he shares i'm the prof
is as 4 principal and not a clerk or
igent.-Cathran vs.. Marmaduke, SUI
Dreme Court of Texas.
ERROR IN BILL OF LADING.
A consignee of goods who advances !
IN the faith of a bull of ladlng and in q
;urance certificate attached, can re- I
:Over from the shipper an amount suf-
icient to reimburse him for the adj S
'ance. if there should be an error in the :
ill of lading and insurance certificate t
" which the insurance could not be b
ecOvered for goods in transit. K feke ?
g. Kehlor ct al, U. 5. Circuit Court,
;. ID. Mo. a
NOTE AS COLLATERAL. "
Where one has pledged notes as col. II
ateral security, he has no right Il, s.
hem without showing that he has per- O.
engagement which they were r
'ledged to secure. The holder of a n
Ote deposited As collateral is mo bound II
D u when it appears that the makers !,
led insOlvent before ma.urity.-Smith ~
s. FELTON,, Supreme Court of Indiana.
ARBITRATION AM AWARD.
An award made BY arbitrators hal
ppended to it the following: ..We sc
gree to correct any error that NAV be :,
iscOvered in this settlement Held ~
nat this statement was i'm effect a reser-
Of judicial aufhorifr 20 H.