The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1884-06-28
NUMBER rs.
COMMERCIAL LAW.
Brief Digests OF Late Decislons.
Compiled Specially for the Midland Indus.
trial Gazette. St. Louis. Mol

0tht N1AStts1s St- AVuASt AAVst
QUORUM or BOARD CORPORATION.
The people ex rel. Flint vs.. Harriug-
ton, appeal TO the Supreme Court OF
Calitornia, was n On in whicha public
oificer was removed by vote OF two
members of proper board, one vo-
ting in the ne alive. The board was
co npo ed OF five member; but two OF
them had been prob bited in sertain
proceedings at law from acting In the
meet ngs the board The officer ar.
pued that the power of removal could
not be exercised by a ma orty of bare
uorum the quorum Of this being
ma GRITTY of the members. In tirming
the Judgment OF removal the court held
that a quorum properly consti uted has
tn full power o hoard, and ma
jority vote thereof will4validate its acts.
When an assembly are duly mot, II is
clear in law that a corporate act may
be done by ma orlty OF tho VINO
have once regularly cons ituted the
meeting. We are not aware of any
case in which the contrary has been
held, and must re arl the aw as well
sc tied that IN a ase like this the action
OF uurum Is the action Of the boa d,
aud that majority oil the quorum
present could do any act VIII Oh ma
o ily of the board, II present, might
| do.
FIRE INsURANcE--AGENT or COMPANY
AND INSURED.
| r. agreed to keep +. insured In three
good companies. and procured three
policies, one beng that of the L. COM
pany, Of which he was agent The
company instructed r. to cancel; he
accor lingly transferred the premium 40.
count from the company to the <.
company, of which he was also ent.
But the insured had not been notified at
the time Of loss and had not returned
the 2. policy After notih alton TO the
p. company OF the loss, this company
having become emba rassed, proc
were furnished TO tho =. company, but
suit was not begun within the time
re luireu by q tract. In thus case,
IOsker vs.. Kent0n Insurance Com
pany, the Su RENE COurG OF New
Hampshire held that II. acted us
agent, both Of the company and the
insured, and his KIN Wedge was that Of
the insured; that the insured could not
avoid the limitation on the ground that
he had no knowledge Of Il, and his
agent was not authorized To assent TO
It while iusistng on the authority o H.
10 make the cont, act OF which It was u
part.
PAYMENT TO BROKER BY PURCHASER.
A broker who was not intrusted with
the possession of the roporty contract
ed in his own name TO sell the same to
veudee who had no knowledge tat
the broker was not Oh real owaer but
dealt W til him rs such. The broker
mott oil his principals that he had sold
for them aud directed whore 10 ship the
property TO tho purchaser. The owa-
ers, without any knowledge that The
broker ha contracted In his own No no,
q d without any conduct ON Their part
clothing the broker with authority TO
receive payment for them, or any pos
session, actual or constructive 81 the
pro, erty. deli Q ed the same TO the vrn-
dee, II Id, that payment by the pur-
chaser TO the broke /, under such cir.
cumstances. Is not bar to the right OF
recovery by the owne s. Grossly VI.
Hill, supreme ourt OF tho.
NOTES AND PAYMENT.
A bank lent II money on seven prom.
issory notes as cola oral security. The
notes were not due and were indorsed
by II, but on presenting them for pay
ment when due the makers said that
th had fully paid them to II. Action
was brought aud the court said: The
law presumes the ass gnment OF the
notes 10 The bank to be for vnlne, AID
no proof was ofle cd 10 SOW that the
consideration was not sufficient 10 sus-
tain the ri ht OF the bank to the notes.
Unless, therefore, the bank author cd
the makers to pay II, or consented be.
fore or after the payment that i hould
be paid 10 him, or autG ori1ed II to re'
eeiye ayment, he bank was ent tied to
Judgment on the notes. City Bank vs..
Taylor, Supreme Court OF Iowa.
ApMINIsrAroR-POw 70 SELL.
, The Supreme curt Of New Hamp.
| sire holds that where will expr ssly
/, authorizes sale Of land mentioned
! therein TO be made by an, person legal
| " qualified to alminis er the estate, I
: Is not necessary that a license Tor such
:, sale be obYa ned from the Probate our
by an administrator with the VII an
nexed appointed after The estate hai
Z been partially adm nistered. Under
! will giving the residue OF an estate u
7 the eleven first cousins of the testatrls
: the administrator has no power or RICH
: 10 make any other than an equal dis
8 tributon OF such residue to the elevel
= persons named.
NEGLIGENcg--FENC RAILROAD.
In the case o Cressy vs.. The North
z ern al road, appea ed TO the Supre
2 Court OF Aew Hampshire, it was hel
/" that the neglect of railroad compan
= does not cuse them from liability e
a injury to animals upon their track,
y though the owner OF such animals wa
y aware Of that neglect when he turne
AZ them out to gra G on his own adJoinin
land.
MENTAL cAPACITY-To MAKE A cos
"a TRACT.
Although the mind Of an individu
i. NAV be to some extent impaired by a.
~ or disease. still, II he b able TO lransa'
his ordinary busness-if he understand
". the nature OF the business in which
ar is engaged, and the effect Of what he
doing, and can exercise his will "
49,. ..ofaravoa &harafo hia aata will ba va