The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1884-04-12

ne executor OF administrator OF q
surviving partner who dies with partner
ship assets in his possession, and while
he Is engaged in settling the partner
ship business, is entitled to the posses
sion of such assets and is charged with
the duty Of completing such settlement
unless relieved from that duty by con
tract or by order OF competent court.
Dayton vs.. Bartlett, Supreme Court
of Ohio.
ENDORSEMENT
A note was made by A. and b. TO the
order Of 2. ind was subsequently In
dorsed by G. and S. and was discounted
in bank Subsequently, z. made the
following Endorsement: ~ hereby
guarantee the payment OF the Within
note without protest" The note was
not protested on maturity. Held, on o.
suit by the bank against ~, that n. g
liability. II he was liable at all, was as
guarantor and not as surety for the
makers or indorsers of the note. I'M
der the most liberal construction of
which they are susceptible, the words
without protest. can have no other ef-
feet than to SO qualify the contract as
to exclude the specific defense that by
not protesting the note the iDdorsers
are released. If either Of them continue
liable, he must still be considered =
principal -Zahn VS.. First Nat. Bank OF
Lancaster, Supreme Court OF Penn.
wATERooURsE AND DEED. 4
A grant of land bounded upon river
or its margin, above tlde-water, carries
with It the exclusive right and title OF
the grantor extending to the center
thread OF the current. unless tho terms
OF the grant clearly denote an intention
TO stop at the margin.
The question Of the intention Of the
parties In conveying land must be as
contained from the language of the
deed and all the attendant clrcumstan.
ces in evidence, and not merely by the
letter in the descriptive part Of the deed.
Piper VS.. Connolly Supreme Court Of
Illinois.
sroCKHOLDER AND CORPORATION.
Under . statutory provision making
the stockholders Of private corpora
ton individually liable for an amount
equal to the amount of stock held bV
them respectively, Ia case OF tho failure
OF the corporation TO make payment OF
any debt, the stockholders are In effect
made partners, and are consequently
jointly and seyerally liable to the cred
itors Of the corporation who are not
also stockholders themselves, to the
amount OF stock held by them respect-
lively. 1t follows that one stockholder
can not maintain an action at law on
such individual liability against a fellow
stockholder, any more than ono part
NOR ran afan bfa M eeav.fsaat Il -. =.
calm against the firm which he may
have purchased. Thompson vs.. Meis.
ser, Supreme Court Of illinois. x
sTREET-cAR PAssERcnm "
When there Ii abundant standing
room inside of street-car, in which
there are pendant straps which pas
senger may hold while standing. he is
guilty of contrlbutory negligence who
rides upon the platform, and II an inju-
ny result to him which would not have
occurred had he been In the inside of
the car, he can not maintain nm action
for such injury. Andrews VS.. "RaiI-
road Company, Supreme Court Of tho
District of Columbia.
USAGE AND CONTRACT.
In an action on written contract to
furnish stone for county bridge to be-
paid for Eat $4.50 per perch, the con-
tract was silent as TO the number of Gu
bic feet In a perch, and the evidence of
the usage Of the trade failed to show
there was any uniform rule on the sub
ject, such evidence being conflicting as
TO whether 164 or 20 cubic feet made a
perch. Held that upon this state cf
proof, and in the absence of any statu-
tory provision defining the quantity In
. perch OF masonry, the negotiations Of
the parties, in which IL was verbally
agreed that the stone was TO be fur
nished at 10 cents per cubic foot, and
that the attorney who wrote the con-
tract expressed this agreement of his
own motion in the written contract by
the feet into perch at % feet
each, at the agreed rate per foot, were
quarry Company vs..
Clements. -Supreme Court Of Ohio.
OPTION CONTRACTS.
The validity of option contracts de-
bends upon the mutual intention of the
parties. IL IL is not the intention in
making the contract that any property
hall be delivered or pad for, but that
he fictitious sale shall be settled on diff
erences, the contract is illegal. But il
: Is the bona fide intention OF the seller
o deliver, or OF the buyer to pay, and,
he option consists merely in the time
# delivery, the contract Is valid and
he putting up Of margins to cover
osses which may accrue from fIuctua-
ions Of prices is legitimate and proper.
Union Nat. Bank VS.. Carr, u. s. Cir
,uit Court, Dist. Iowa.
FALSE REPRESENTATIONS
Whether false representation made
~ the vendor in q material matter in o
Iale of land is actionable, depends upon
it relates to matter concern
ne which both parties have not equal
means Of knowledge, and whether II is
IN expression Of opinion or an affirnla-
ION of fact. False representations
made by vendor in the sale OF land,
'elating to the quality and productive
Jess of the soil, its CO sacity to produce
'rops or to support cattle, calculated
md intended TO deceive the Yendee, and
having that effect. are actionable. Ia
Messer VS.. smyth, Supreme Court Of
Saw HnmnghIla