The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1884-02-02
COMMERCIAL LAW.
Brief Digssts of Late Decisions.
Specially for the st. Louis CONNER
cial Gazette.l



come void IN case OF failure to make |
prompt payment of premium, but upon
a surrender within tn rty days thereaf-
after a proportional paid-up policy
would be Issued The agent at the time
of issuing the policy represented that it |
was monitor eitable, and the insured. IN
reliance on his representations, failed to
apply for paid-up policy within the
snecified time Held, that the insured
had no legal right to rely on what was
sa by the agent at the time be took
the policy Ii the loose expressions used
by the ag Mt at tho time imported more
than was contained in the policy, all
negot ations between the parties anda
that was said at the time, are conclu
sively deemed by the law to have been
merged in the written contract. That
EXPIRE SEES the exact contract made be-
TWEEN the parties at the time and the
whole ot'it. The Attorney-Gt neral VS..
Continental Life ms. Co., N. \. Court
Of Appeals.
COMMON CARRIER--sETTLEMEN
A lot Of oats were Slipped over a
railroad, but they were not called for
unit at the end of two months. The
storage charges were 1915, about
which there was some dispute, and it
was charged that the oats wore dam
aSed. The matter was settled by the
payment of $40, and q receipt was Civ
en- for the freight and one taken for the
oats as delivered according to the bills
of lading in good order. On a suit for
damages aga INST the carrier it was held
that the settlement with the warehouse
company was complete dscharge and
wa yer for any claim of loss or damage
to the goods, without considering the
pla ntiff right in allowing the oats to
rema n in store for two months. Lem
yer. $. Park u Pac II. X. Co. VS.. Harp,
Supreme Court of Colorado.
PRoM1ssoRY NOTE.
When note is perfect on its face and
contains no indications that it is deliv-
cred in violation Of any agreement, and
is taken in good faith and for valuable
consideration, the faker will not be af-
fected by any agreement made between
the principal and surety of which he
has no notice. Whitcomb ct al. VS..
Wheeler, Supreme Court of Indiana.
A certificate on the ba k of note by
maker, who was also the payce, that
it was given for q valuable c9nsidela-
ton. that he had no defense to it, etc.,
does not prevent his signature to such
certificate from having the force of an
Endorsement so as to make the note ne
gotiable and transfer the tide to bona
Dde holder for alue.--Dunning VS..
Heller, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
WILL.
If will which was duly execute l,
and which contained clause expressly
revoking former wills is cancelled, it is
question of fact and intention to be
collected from all the circumstances q
the case, whether an earlier will which
has not been destroyed is revived by such
cancellation. In the absence of atfirma
tive evidence that the teslator intended
to revive the earlier will by the cancel.
alton oil the second, the earlier will will
be held not to be revived Oral declara.
tions of the testator, made after the can
collation. of the will, are admissible in
evidence for the purpose of showing
whether he thereby intended to revive 9
former will which had not been dc
stroyed. -Pickens VS.. Davis, Supreme
PARTNERSHIP.
If one knowingly permits himself t.
be held out as partner IN firm, hC
becomes LA 10 to those who deal will
the firm in the belief that he is part
ner, as fully as If he were in fact part
ner. Where one has been advertised Il
the world as partner, notice of hi
withdrawal must be given to the gen
eral public and should not he confined
to former customers of the firm. Thes,
latter are ent tied to actual persona
notice. The fact that the Withdrawal
of q partner has become matter of gen
eral notoriety will not supply the plac,
of a public notice where there is no Wis
ible change in the business, in the it'll
of the firm, nor in its advertisement
Streeker VS.. Conn, Supreme Court o
Indiana.
BROKERS' COMMISSION.
A broker employed to procure LOAF
is entitled to his commission when h
procures a lender ready, willing an,
able to lend the money on the term
proposed. The brokers' right to hi
commission does not depend on tn
contingency of the applicants accept
ance of the loan, but on his perform
ance OF his part of the contract. He ca
not be deprived of his commission b
the principals refusing to accept tn
loan which the negotiations of til
former have resulted in securing.-Vin
ton VS., Baldwin, Supreme Court of In
diana.
MECHANrC's IIEN.
When the owner of a building ha
paid sub-contractor, filing q MT
channels lien, sum of money on accour
of his work wit out directing its appl
cation, the sum will be applied to thos
items for which the property of tn
owner might have been rendered liabl
by lien.-Nelson VS.. Partridge's Az
ministrator, St. Louis Court of Appeals
SIGNING AS s.AGENT."
The character of the liability of tn
drawer of a bill of exchange must b
determined from the instrument itsel
The addition of the word ''agent" to hi
name, without anything else on the in
strument indicating his principal, doe
not relieve hi n from personal labilit
as drawer of the bills-Ohio Nat. Ban
VS.. Cook, Supreme Court of Ohio.