The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1884-03-29
COMMERCIAL Law.


brlox DA2osts 81 late D@ofBlomos
Compiled Specially for the Midland Indua.
A trial Gazette. ST. Louis Mol
RAILWAY AND PAssENGER--DA1EAGE
Plaintiff purchased at one station on
the railway ticket to another station,
the ticket agent assuring her that tho
train would stop at that station. The
conductor of the train, which was n
through express to point beyond the
station to which the plaintiff desired
to go, refused to stop ut that station,
but carried her through to the terminus.
whore she was obliged TO procure q car
rage for her destination. Held that the
company was responsible for the mis-
take or misdirection of the stationsmas-
ter, but not for the refusal of the con-
ductor, and that the measure Of dams
ages was the sum paid by her to return
from the terminus to the intermediate
station, the value of her time and tho
Inconvenience she suffered. --Marshall
vs.. M 7. II. Il. Co, Supreme Court Of
Missouri. r
LARCENY AND EMBEzzLEMENT.
The felonious appropriation Of goods
by servant or agent who has merely
the custody OF them, Ia larceay Whe .
he has the manual possession Of the
! goods, his felonious appropriation OF
them is embe4zlement. Generally,
| where the agent has received goods OF
money 10 carry, deliver, control OF.
manage for his principal, unless no
parts with the manual possession and
! delivers the property to his principal,
or to another for him, or places Il in
some depository, such as drawer or,
safe provided for the purpose and to
which the principal or superior agent
4 has access, or over which they have.
control, he can not be convicted OF. lar
ceny for felonious appropriation OF tho
4 goods or money. The olfense is EN-.
bezz ement. --Warmoth vs. the COM
monwealth, Kentucky Court Of Ap,
peals.
Will.
A husband and wife jointly executed
q 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 until the death of tho wife, as it
was q joint instrument Nothing
i further was done until nine years after
| the death Of the testator Held that
the loinder of the wife had no effect up
on the legal force Of the Will, and oil
| her acts and declarations were 10 be re-
gatded rs surplllsage. Also that be-
cause the will was not prubated within
! three years after the death III the Tesla
| tor, as required by statute. the estate
devised did not descend 20 the heirs OF
the testator Allen VS.. Allen, Supreme
Court of Kansas.
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.
A principal who refuses ID pay.a debt
and who buys the surety's land nc a sale
under an execution against both, can
not hold the land as against the surety
:. aud compel the surety TO pay the debt
which he himself should have pad. In
such q case, MS between the principal
and surety, the principal merely pays
his debt to tho amount OF his bid and
equity requires that The surety shall
hold the land unclouded ny such d pur-
chase. Madgett VS.. Fleener, Supreme
! Court Of Indiana R
| CLERK OR AGENT AS PARTNER.
Where a clerk or agent is by agree
ment to receive fixed portion Of prof
its as compensation for his time or la
Dor, he does SO as clerk or agent and
not as partner. But where one ad-
vances money under an agreement that
/ luG 10 ~ DO ACAulA0DA1 OAb AOA
compensation he Is TO share In the net
profits Of the adventure, this makes
/ him n partner, for no shares in the prof
its as a principal and not ai clerk or
agent. -Cathran VS.. Maltnaduke, SUI
preme Court of Texas. i.l siiaslg 10
l4 ERROR IN BILL OF, LADING.
Al consignee Of goods who advances
on the faith of bill of ladlng and in
surance certificate attached, can re-
cover from the shipper an amount suf-
fieient to reimburse him for the adj
vance, If there should be an error in the
bill Of lading and insuranceCertiiicat
j by which the insurance could not be
recovered for goods in transit. Kufeke
VS.. Kehlor ct al, U. 5. Circuit Court,
L. ID. Mo. 1f \ h3.H - i{ia'
NOTE AS coLLATERAL. iis
Where one has pledged notes as col
lateral security, he has no right To
them without showing that he has per-
formed the engagement which they were
pledged to secure. The holder of q
note deposited as collaferalis not bound
10 sue when IL appears that the makers
died insolvent before maturity. Smith
VS.. FELTON,, Supreme Court OF Indiana
84at ARBITRATION AND AwARD.
An award made by, arbitrators had
appended to 1t the following; eve
agree to correct any error that may b.
discovered in this settlement, Held
that this statement was In effect a reser
vatlon OF judicial authority to be exer
cised thereafter by the arbitrators ant
that this rendered the award nullity
Hooker VS.. williamson, Suprem
Court of Texas.
$50. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE. =
Where person largely indebted anc
in very embarrassed circumstance
makes voluntary deed to his wife, tn
/ deed will be held constructiyely fraud
| ulent. In such case It Is not neces
: sary to prove that an actual fraud wa
I intended. -Bonhannon VS.. Combs, Su
| preme Court Of Missouri. sa9l3
4, STOCK GAMBLING. ii'l
\ When the magnitude Of purchase
!, of stock made by broker Is out Of a
/, proportion to the money advanced b
!, The principal to paw therefor, the tran
y action is stamped with the charact,
q of a gambling enterprise, and the la
! will not enforce payment.-Patterson