The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1884-04-05
COMMERCIAL Law.
Brief Digesta OF Ksato Dsolalons.
Compiled Specially for the Midland Indus
trial Gazette. st. Louis, Mol

l
ing associat on gives credit upon its
books to depositor for the amount OF
check or negotiable paper deposited
for collection, the title to the check or
paper passes Immediately to the bank,
which becomes the holder 0f the same
for value, is not true without qualitica-
ton, When the deposit was made and
| credited In order to make good an over
drawn account of the customer, or where
the amount thus cress.ted was immedi.
ately drawn against, the bank is I'M.
doubtedly to hold the check-at least,
until the overdraft of the account Il
male good from other sources, or the
cash drawn ON the strength Of the credit
has been returned. Unlike checks, cash
| deposited by customers with the bank
ceases to be the property OF the deposit
tor and becomes the property Of the
bank, creating at once the relationship
OF dobtot and creditor. The indorse.
ment by the customer Of check do.
| posted for collection Is only intended
to put the paper into such shape that
the bank may collect Il, and not to
thereby pass the title to the bank.
The practice which has grown up
among banks TO credit deposits Of
checks ct once to the account OF the
depositor and to allow him TO draw
against them before the collection, Is q
mere gratuitous privilege which does
not grow into binding legal usage.
In this case the plaintiffs seek to offset
the amount OF their credit ON the books
of defunct bank against the promia.
sorry notes received by the bank for
discount before Its failure. Held that
If the bank held tho notes At the time
of Its failure and was entitled 10 re.
ceive the amounts due thereon when
they maturcd; such offset might be-
made. But an offset Of this K nd can
not be allowed when il appears that
the notes were not the property Of tho
bank at the time Of its failure, but had
been Endorsed away for value. Nc
knowledge of any Of the officers Of Q
bank OF its insolvency Is sufficient to
void transactions between the bank
and its customers on The ground Of
fraud, unless the evidence clearly
shows that the directors who repre-
sent the corporation also had such
knowledge. -Balback vs. Freylinghuy.
sen, U. S. Circuit Court, ID. N j.
PARTNERSHIP AND DISSOLUTION.
After the formation Of partnership
by which one OF tho partners was to
manula sture lumber and ship the same
to the Other in Chicago to be there sold
by the other partner, each 10 share
equally In tho net profits, and tho busi-
ness was carried on for several years,
the partner in Chicago refused 70 fur
nish any supplies for the manufacture
of lumber, and the other refused TO ship
any more lumber TO him, nothing being
done by either afterwards 10 recognize
the partnership Ms existing held that
this was MS eif'ectual dissolution as II
the parties had formally and specifl.
cally agreed that 1t should then termi-
nate. Where both parties refuse 10
perform their part Of the partnership
agreement, there is no rule of law re.
curing or recognizing continuance Of
the partnership. Even II one partner
refuses to act under the partnership
agreement, the other may elect to con.
slider 1t terminated. --Ligare We. Pea.
cock, Supreme Court Of Illluols.
PATENT-RrGHT NOTE.
When one Of the makers Of promIs
sorry note given for worthless patent.
right Is retained as party defendant
In suit on such note to the end Of the
litigation, and Is required to sign anotii-
err note given rs compromise of such
suit, under fraudulent agreement
with the payee (the plaintiff) that he
will aid in the collection thereof, and
that he shall himself receive certain
portion of the amount realized, and
shall not be liable to pay any part OF II.
In an action ON the second note the
plaintiff can not be allowed to use him
rs an instrument to compromise the suit
with the other maker. and reward him
for his services In that behalf, and at
the same time maintain an action In
which he pretends to be holding him
as also liable on the note. Mitchell
VS.. Donahey ct al.-Supreme Court Of
Iowa.
PATENT INFRINGEMENT.
The plaintiffs, being mineral water
manufacturers, sought to restrain the
defendants, who carried on similar
business, from sending out to their Gus
toners aerated water in bottles of q
peculiar manufacture which the plain.
titfs claimed the sole right to use. II
appeared that in 1876 a French inven-
tor patented glass bottle with glass
marble In the neck to serve the pur-
pose OF a stopper or cork, and that the
plaintiffs purchased from him the sole
right to use the invention. These bot
ties were in the course Of business re-
turned TO other manufacturers and the
suit in question was brought to try the
right OF persons obtaining them in that
way to refill and send them out again
I with aerated waters Of Their own man
ufacture. Held that the plaintiffs
) rights had not been infringed. Barrett
ct al. vs.. White ct al, English High
Court Of Justice.
NOTE AND ENDORSEMENT.
Where one Of several indorsers has
been held for the full amount Of o note.
he is entitled to contribution from the
rest. II any of the others have become
insolvent OF are beyond the reach oi
; process, he is entitled, in equity, to re-
cover from the remainder the proper
ton they would have to pay of the whole
/ amount II insolvents and non-residents
werv excluded. Stewart W. GQuldou
Supreme Court Of Michigan,