The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1884-11-07
COx,HRCIAL LAW.
Brief Digests OF Late Decisions.
Compiled Specially for the Midland Inirs
trial Gazette. st. Louis. Mol

TRAVELLING ON ANOTHER's TIcKEr-RE.
scovERY FOR INJURIES.
A person travelling on a railroad ona
Communication ticket issued to another
person can not recover damages for in-
juries received through the negligence
of the company. 80 held by the SUI
preme Court of Iowa in the case of
Way VS.. c., r. /. " p. Ry. Co, Judge
Adam in the opinion reversing the de-
cisiOn of the lower court, saying:
1.-The only relation existing between
plaintiff and the company having been
induced by fraud, he can not
be allowed to set up that relation
against the company as n basis of re-
covery. He was, then, at the time of
the injury, in the car without the rights
of passenger, and without the right
to be there at all. We do not say
that it is necessary that person should
pay fare to be entitled to the rights
of q passenger. 1T is sufficient, prob
ably, if he has the consent of tine
company, fairly obtained. But no
one will claim that L mere tres
passer has such rights, and it APP
pears to us to be well settled that
consent obtained by fraud is equally
unayailing."
LIEN OF CREDITORS.
In law, the first entry of Judgment is
always first lien, provided due dill
gence has been made in making the
levy. This is also true as regards part
ners. A mortgage on the individual
property of one partner was fore
closed, and both an Individual creditor
and o firm creditor claimed the surplus
money. Both had Judgment. the latter
being first entered. he former
claimed a preference as an individual
creditor, but was defeated. and carried
the case, London VS.. Ball. to the
Supreme Court OF Indiana, where the
judgment was affirmed, on the follow
ing opinion: at is not doubted that
the general rule is that partnership
creditors are postponed as to individual
property, and individual creditors pre-
ferred. But this general rule does not
apply where a lien has been obtained
by Judgment rendered prior to the
creation OF the individual debt"
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES OF.
In the case of Bank VS.. Fiske, the
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
held that in suit against the stock
holders of corporation under the stat
ute, it is immaterial whether q debt
for hired money, for the recovery of
which the suit is brought. was beyond
the power of the corporation TO con-
tract, in the absence o; fra I'd or collu-
sion on the part Of the plant ifs. If
the corporation received and used the
plaintiffs money, it is also immaterial
whether the debt was contracted by
officers properly authorized or not. 1t
is no oh ,ectlon to the maintenance of
such a suit that the plaintiffs have
commenced an action at law against
the corporal on for the recovery of the
same debt; nor are they obliged to first
exhaust their r,medy against the
sureties on the note before calling on
the stockholders.
CORPORATION = TRANSFER OF STOCK.
In the recently decided case of
Robinson vs.. National Bank of New
Berne, the New York Court of APP
peals held that provision in the
statute under which corporation is
organized or in its bylaws regu1r-
iny transfers OF its stocks to be- made
upon, and where the owner of stock
has assigned and transferred for
valuable consideration the certificate
issued to him, and the corporation
when requested to make the transfer
without valid reason refuses to do so,
this amounts to waiver of the re-
quirements, aud the transfer is COM
plete, and the corporation is bound
to recognize the title OF the assignee,
precisely the same as if it had done its
duty and made the proper entries upon
the books.
wIFE'S EARNINGS
A recent opinion of the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania will shock tae
sensibilitie, of fair-minded people, be-
caus 1t discloses the fact that there Yet
remains on the statute books OF the |
keystone State enactmentS whii h. ii |
they do not SAVIOR of barbarism, were |.
based on greed and injustice. Br ely |
stated, Pennsylvania supreme body |
hold, Judge Paxon delivering the |
opinion, that the earnings of the wife /
belon to the husband, save in certain
excepCional cases specified in various !
acts of the Assembly: and unless it can
be shown that there was a gift by the
husband t, tn, wife her earnings be-
long to him.
PlOMiSSORY NOTE-INDORSER.
An indorser on promissory note is
something more than surety. The
contract of Endorsement means that the
indorser will pay on the single condi
ton that the maker or acceptor does
not. An indOfser of note has no
right to demand that the holder shall
sill collateral in his possession and pay
the note out cf its proceeds. The in
dorser's duty is to pay the note, and
then he himself can con,rol the cOliat-
erals. Supreme Court of Pennsyl-
Vanjl.
IMPEACHING AWARD.
A written common law award upon
4 written submiss on. can not be I'M
peacheG in an action at law upon 1t by
extraneous evidence. nor any proceed
ing. simply for the allowance of claims
barred by the statute of limitations
Pierce vs.. Pierce, Supreme Court of
New Hampshire.
Observation-Disclosures OF A S,GNEE.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,
case of Ernest vs.. Hopkins, holds that
the assignee o; nortga .e. unless the
mortgagor has esIopped himself from
the defense holds it sub ect to all the
cIuit es with which it was affected in
the hands of the signor.
KEEPING A JUDGMENT ALIVE.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
is of the opinion that Judgment as