The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1884-07-12
COMMERCrAL LAW.
Brief Dlgeats OF late al~ciaaon0s
ICompiled Specially for the Midland IRdusg
trial Gazette. st. Louis. Mol

AAaA0~e8 ~~~~~~
iComplled Specially for the Midland IRdusg
trial Gazette. St. Louis. No..
sLEEPrNG-cAR COMPANY TO PRE-
VENT THEFT.
The case of Gardner VS.. Pullman Pal
oce ar Company, in which plain III
received Judgment In lower court LOT
property stolen while occupying berth
In sleeping car OF the deiendant, was
appealed to the supreme Court OF ienn-
sylvania, which sustained the lower
court in the follow ng opinion;
ssConceding that the company is not
liable in this action rs an inn-keeper
or common carrier, Yet a reasonable
and proper degree OF care is imposed
on the company. Whether IL did err
else that degree Of care under the cir
cumstances was for the Jury. The main
OBJ ect IN taking passage on such car
| is to permit the passenger 70 sleep, and
reasonable care and precaution must DO
taken by the company against the theft
of the valuable property of the passen-
ger from his berth. This Is not q case
Of robbery by force and violence, but
by stealthy violence. Unless watch-
man be kept constantly. In view Of the
center aisle oil the car, larceny from .
sleeping passenger may be committed
without the thief being detected in the
act. The fact that another passenger
In the same car was robbed the same
night was admissible as bearing upon
the absenoe Of proper care on tho part
of the company"
ACTION AGAINST sURETIEs- oFFIcIAL
BOND.
In an action against surcties OF q sup
visor for an alleged breach OF his offi-
cial bond, tho declaration averred that
the money and for, came into the hanus
} OF the sui ervisor, during his term Of Of
: fee next preceding that for which iho
| bond IN suit was given, that the same
had never been disposed Of by any or
! der Of the town, but became In his
! hands part OF the general fund, there
8 having been no loss or injury proved
1 according to the statute, In this case,
| tlreen vs.. tho People ct al, Appellate
h Court, Third District Illinois, Il was
held that positive averrment IN the
" declaration that the money was IN the
q principals hands at tho expiration Oh
/ the term during which Il was receiyehs
q or that he cha ged himself with Il IN ms
% accounting with the town authorities
a would seem TO be necessary to render
q the securities on the new bond respon-
II sible.
a GUARDIAN AND WARD.
is Only In cases Of fraud and fragrant
Is breaches Of trust viii n guardian be-
10 charged with compound interest on
70 moneys OF his ward in his hands But
10 II. even without fraud or willfu
= disregard OF duty, he fails TO invest
surh MONEYS when he should do so
he will be charged with simple In
terest ut the legal rate whether, IN suef
case, the guardian should DO chargeS
q with interest from the time ~
u receives the moneys, or only ate
the expiration of a certain tlmo Il
on which TO make the Investment, ant
st whether for the purpose Of computing
Sc interest. the expense Of tile maintenance
Oh 81 the ward for each year should BIO dc
Quoted at the commence nent OF tn
sc wear from the amount Of the estate i
i ! The hands OF the qua dian, are matter
de resting In the sound discretion OF 10
court .-Mather vs.. Heath, Suprem
,er Court Of Wisconsin.
on WHEN DECLARATIONS OF AGENT BIN
at HIS PRINCIPAL.
he .sThe declarationaaof an agent mad
- pending trnnsa ton In which he
authorized to represent his prnclpa
OF and constitutional part Of the transhl
es, ton, are, in law, = In the opinion OF Il
ar Court of Chancery Of New Jersey, -
her be regarded as the declarations OF u
n.y. principal; but to entitle them to tn
effect, It Is plain and necessary, both
VS. a matter Of reason and justice that q
DIV, fact OF his agency should first be es!a
ZEN lisbed Ly competent evidence. II
dirt agents unsworn declarations are
owe terly incompetent for such purpos
Isas They are, at their very best me
hearsay."
fol PRoMIssoRY NOTES.
q The Court OF Common Pleas Of Phi
usn delphia. In the case Of Browning
row Bro. vs. Manrer. holds that the value
nm nm note is not destroyed or its negotiah
lalK ity affected by the fact that the pay
writes his name upon i In the wro
+ place, when the mistake Is immediate
m corrected, the name written IN
i Is right place and It is atterward net
il tinted.
~ PLEDGED sEcURITIEs-RIGHT OF
into
in The Supreme Court OF Louisla
read case of Pomez VS.. Connors ct al., dec
ed that debtor who transfers seci
yedp ties in full ownership to his creditors
yonr settlement OF the latter's claim with
vour right of redemption within speci
an time loses all right to the property i
.goie fails to redeem within the pfescrl
snn. time, such contract being one OF
lour and not Of pledge,
and CAPITAL STOCK A TRUST FUND.
lm The capital stock Of a moneyed
ii !, poration Is trust fund for the paayn
81 its debts, and upon its insolvel
creditors may compel, by b II in eqt
Two The payment Of the unpaid subst
'eetly tions to the capital stock so far
man necessary for tine satisfaction OF
or OF, debts. Supreme Court Of Pennsy
'pPeu MIA.
a. no REFORMATION OF MoRTGAGE-wHI
other TAKES EFFECT.
why A mortgage corrected by deer
lrsery Court, as between the mortgage
nough subsequent vendee. who has take
.nse, property bona fide. in payment
4 N ~. - -. "A AL a.