Wessington Springs herald. (Wessington Springs, Aurora County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1884-11-21
COMMERCIAL LAW.
Brief Digests of Late Decisions.

1DE1C1 AJlSC6lS IA 1LhN
Compiled Specially tor the Midland Indus
trial Gazette, st. Louis. MOL
! TRAVELLING ON ANoTHER's TIcKET-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. SO held by the su-
prcme Court of Iowa in the case OF
Way VS.. c., r. l. " 7. 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 al not
be allowed to set up that relation
against the company as a basis OF re.
covery. He was, then, at the time OF
the injury, in the car without the rights
of a passenger, and without the right
to be there at ali. We do not say
that it is necessary that q person should
pay fare to be entitled to the rights
of a passenger. 1t is sufficient, prob
ably, if he has the consent OF the
company, fairly obtained. But no
one will claim that q mere tres
passer has such rights, and it APP
pears TO us to be we'll settled that
consent obtained by fraud is equally
unavailing.n
LIEN OF CREDITORS.
In law, the first entry of Judgment is
always a first hen, provided due dill
gence has been made in making the
levy. This salso true as regards part
ners. a mortgage on the individual
property OF one partner was fore
closed. and both an individual creditor
and a firm creditor claimed the surplus
money. Both had Judgment. the latter
being first entered. The 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: sit is not doubted that
the general rule is that partnership
creditors are postponed as to individual
property, and individual creditors pre-
terred. But this general rule does not
apply where a lien has been obtained
by judgment rendered prior to the
creation of the individual debt"
HlOtI l. VIZ
In the case of Bank vs.. Fisks, the
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
held that in a suit against the stock
holders of a 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 OF fra i'd or coliu-
sion on the part Of the plaintiffs. 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
an action at law against
the corporation for the recovery OF the
same debt; nor are they obliged to first
exhaust their rtmedy 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 hal a provision in the
statute under which Il corporation is
organized or in its bylaws requlr-
inc transfers Of its stocks to be made !!
upon, and where the owner of stock |
has assigned and transferred for Il
valuable consideration the certificate ,
issued to HIM, and the corporation
when requested to make the transfer
without Il valid reason refuses to do so, |
this amounts to Il waiver OF the re-
quircmen!s, aud the transfer is COM
plcte, 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 the
sensibilities of fair-minded people, be-
cause 1t discloses the fact that there yet
remains on the statute books OF The |
Keystone State enactments which. if |
they DO not SAVIOR of b~arbarisln, were
based on greed and injustice. Briefly
stated. Pennsylvania's supreme Lody
hold, Judge Iaxon delivering the
opinion, that the earnings of the wife
bclon to the husband. ave in certain
exceptional cases specified in various
acts of the Assembly: and unless it can
be shown that there was a gift by the
husband to tn. wife her earnings be-
long to him.
pNuMlSSORY NOTE-INDORSEI.
an indorser on u promissory note is
something more than a surety. The
of Endorsement means that the
indorser will pay on the single condi-
ton that the maker OF acceptor does
not. An indorser Of a note has no
right to demand that the holder shall
Sell collateral in his possession and pay
the note out OF its proceeds. The in
dorser's duty is to pay the note. and
then he himself can conrol the coilat- [
erals. supreme Court Of Pennsyl-
vania.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF ASSIGNEE.
The Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania,
case of Ernest VS.. Hopkins, holds that