The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1884-03-22
NUMBER IL.
COMMERCIAL Law.
Brief Disests OF Late Decssions.
Compiled Specially for tho Midland Inius.
trial Gazette, St. Louis, Mol



DEFECTIVE MACHINERY.
One Morrisssy, while using q machine
in h s capacity of workman for manu-
featuring company, acquired knowl-
edge OF It's de.ests and consequent un-
safe condition. He complained Of it's
condition to the foreman under whose
orders he was working and whose duty
It was to see that the machinery was
kept in good order and repair. The
TO eman promised him to remedy said
defect and directed him to go to work
on the machine. The wo kman there
upon remained in the service OF the
company and continued to use the ma
chine. In so doing he was injured
through the said detects before any
st ps were taken TO remedy the same
Held d at the workman's knowledge Of
the defects in the machine was not, UNI
der the circumstances and rs matter
OF law, conclusive Of contributory neg
ligeuce on his art, but it was fact in
the ca 9 to be taken into consideration
by the ia y, with all the other faats and
circumstan es, In determin 'ng the ques-
ton whether the worknan's own negli-
gence contributed 10 the accident NV
VIII oh he was injured. -Cnion Man'fg
60, vs., Morrissey, Sup. Court Of Ohio.
PARTNERSHIP.
Comp ainant was the surviving mem
Der OF u firm and also the administrators
Of the deceased partner. The finn aud
its members were insolvent The COM
plalnant, as administrator, sold land us
the individual property of the ,cedent.
The land was bid oil for the defendant
who sub equently transferred his bid to
the complainant upon condi ion that
complainant should pay him note
which ne held against the MS olvent
firm. Part Of the amount thereof had
been paid. Complainant offered to COM
plete the contract and prayed for de-
cree compelling specific perfor nance.
Held that the contract set up would d.
We assets from the proper co rise Of
admin stration, and would be n breach
OF trust and u constructive fraud; part
nership assets being primarily liable for
firm debts, and individual assets for In
dividual de IS, in cases Of insolvency
and death. -pagwell VS.. Bagwell, Su.
preme Court Of Georgia
WILL.
When viii sproperly signed by the
maker and two attesting witnesses,
both of whom testify that they werc
present and saw the estator sign IL In
their presence, and chat they believe he
was OF sound mind and memory at tho
time of executing II, this IN the absence
of the proof OF any fraud, compul sion
or other improper conduct Is sufficient
to make out a prima facie case and en-
title the will to probate. Heirs of Critz
VS.. Pierce, Supreme Coult OF Illinois.
When a person devises an estate 10
be divided equally among his heirs as
class, without naming them, reference
must be had to the statute regulating
descents TO determine not only who are
to TAX !, but also the quantity Of estate
each Is TO take, and hence the. children
and heirs Of a deceased son will take
only the share that their father, IL liv-
ing, would have taken, ms hers OF their
grandfather. Kelly ct al, vs.. Vigus ct
al, Supreme Court Of Illinois.
ESTATE OF DECEASED PARTNER.
The estate of deceased partner IL
not liable to creditor Of the firm Of
which he was q member, except In case
OF the insolvency OF the firm and II the
surviving partners, and even then the
estate is only liable to pay such debt
after all his individual debts have been
paid, The claim of u firm creditor may
be allowed aga Z the estate Of de-
ceased partner, If limited TO be paidout
Of the separate estate az or the payment
of the separate debts of the estate Is
made and after the exhaustion OF tho
firm assets, or when the remedy Of the
firm creditor would be unavailing
against the surviving partners. This
may be d ne TO save the bar of the
statute, and to avail Of evidence of the
Justice Of the claim that might be lost
before IL would be known whether the
firm assets would pay the firm debts
Doggett vs.. Dill, Supreme Court Of III.
UsURY.
II usury is reserved In note the
payee will only be ent tied to recover
the amount due him when the contra t
for usury was made. After contract
to pay more than the legal rate OF in
tere has been made q subsequent
promise to pay will not relieve the con-
tract Of the faint of usury nor prevent
the defense usury from being inter-
posed. An agreement to give a stated
sum in excess Of the legal rate of inter-
| G {, In cons Iteration of the extension OF
| I1t bliilb VI pay AAotNDS 10 - tuuOh iA ' v
lation OF the statute against usury rs
an a sreement to pay ~ per cent. inter-
est The statute can not be vaded by
any shift ord zee. 1he law 10 lks to the
s bstance and not the form OF the trans
act on - eonard VS.. Patton, Supreme
Court of Illinois.
APPROVING OFFICIAL BOND.
A town clerk OBJ ected to bond of
fered by the superv sor Of the town,
but, upon the promise to get further Sc
curity, took the bond and tut 1t on file
among re town papers, as such, and
perm tied the su ervisor to file his oath
OF Office and scharge his official du-
ties The promise was never fulfilled
and the super 5isor absconded. Held
that the bond was good and that the
clerk could no, be heard to declare that
it was not accepted. The statute re-
quir ny town clerk to appro bond
was made for the security Of the public
and not for the benefit of the bonds
men, and the sureties can not object
that the bond was not approved in the
manner provided by law.-Town Of
Ashkum VS.. Lake ct al, Appellate
Court Of Illinois,