The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1884-05-24
NUMBER 81.
COMMERCIAL Law.


Complied Specially for the Midland Imdus.
trial Gazette, 81. Louis Mol
CONTRACT IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
The case Of La Taurette vs.. Ames ct.
al, decided in favor of the plaintiff by
the st. Louis Circuit Court on March
24th, was an action brought to recover
damages for q breach OF contract, the
defendants having, in consideration Of
$4,S60,5S, sold TO plaintiff their estab-
lishment for the manufacture of sue
ton wood pumps" and wood f0rce
pumps" together with all their ma
chinery and manufactured stoek, aud
the good win Of their business, the de-
PENDANTS at the same time covenanting
that they would not manufacture or
sell the same class of pumps at any
place In the United States west Of the
Gig ty-iirst meridian for the period OF
ten years, and that they wouh not en-
ter into the employment Of OF ers Gu
gagged directly or indirectly IN
manufacturing or selling su h
pumps within the period and
territory previously referred TO,
covenanting. in case Of VIOLA
ton, to forfeit $4,000 US liquidated
damages. The covenant was broken
and suit begun. The defense was that
| khC W OtlHAJ was llNRlAtt UOGOlSG III EOr
straint of trade. The Judge In his do
cisIon, said; "Contracts In total re-
straint Of trade (tkatis contracts bind
ing q person not to engage In a pa tic.
u,ar avocation anywhere1 are regarded
as invalid, But contracts that merely
bind person not TO follow a Gil en- avO-
cation at certain place or places
universally held TO be valid engage
ments, provided the restraint imposed
upon the person be in itself reasonable,
and no greater than seems necessary TO
protect the other party to the contract
IN the engagement Of the business or
good will OF the bus ness purchased.
The only din ,ulty in applying the rule
was in determining WITH respect TO par
ticular cases what was u reasonable
Limitation.
LEAsE-sTATUTE OF FRAUDS
The Supreme Court OF Michigan
holds that a lea may DO made 10 take
effect In the future, and the estate 10.
gins with the future period and not with
the contract; an agreement by parol for
q future term, not exceeding one year,
is valid, and not within tho statute Of
frauds.
Commenting on the above the ChIca-
60 Legal NesOs says. "This opinion
would seems TO DO contrary 10 the
weight Of authority and the spirit Of the
statute II nos OF It's express letter"
LTFE NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. OF PoL-
ICY
The assignment of policy Of life In
surance policy as collateral security for
advances made TO q third person rests
the legal I to In the assignee, the inter-
est of tue cwner OF tho policy only OK
tending to what remains Of IL after such
advances have been paid, and until
such advances have been paid the
owner of the policy, although he is un-
dor no obligation TO repay the same, Is
not entitled to have II surrendered TO
him, or TO receive the amount due there-
from. Supreme Court California,
PARTNERSHIP.
A partnership exists where there Is q
common participation in the profits, as
profits, after the payment Of expenses.
A landlord furnished land and teams
and feed for them, and the tenant sup
piled labor and provisions for the la
borers In the cultivation of the CROP,
the gross product to be divided between
them, without any account of expendi-
ture made by either. Held. by the SUI
preme Court of North Carolina not TO
DO an agricultural partnership.
MORTGAGE OF CROPS.
The Supreme Court Of Indiana, In the
case Of Fayoritc Va, Dearborn. holds that
a mortgager Ia posse 3sion Is entitled 10
all crops grown upon the land until the
mortgagee has, in some lawful manner,
abridged that right Where tho cred
iiors Of tho mortgager levied execution
upon and bou glit the crops before the
receiver was appointed under the mort
gage, tie right vested by such sale can
not be defeated by the subsequent ap.
pointment OF receiver
VENDOR AND vENDEF.
The Supreme Court OF Pennsylvania.
Bowser vs.. Dick, held that when VEN
dor institutes an action found d upon u
contract for the sale of land, and recov-
ers judgment for the purchase money,
or what Is the same thing. takes and
enters up a Judgment bond or note
therefor, and then proceeds by execu-
ton to sell the land. he must lie cons d.
cred as selling all tho estate in the land,
whatever that may be, which he agrees
TO sell to the defendant.
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
Supreme Court Of Ohio in the case Of
MiIler's Executrix VI. Sullivan g. 20.
Where an agent enters into contra
without disclosing his principal or
agency, the prime pal, If he takes adj
vantage of the contract must do 80
subject to all the rights and equities OF
which the other contracting party, who
had no knowledge Of the agency, might
avail himself MS against the agent, as.
summing the latter to be principal.
FIRE INSURANCE.
A soliciting agent procuring an in
surance company risks and applications
on which policies are issued, is, In so
doing, the agent Of the company, and
not Of the insured; aud If the agent
makes a mistake in wrongfully stating
the facts which were correctly given
him by the insured in preparing the APP