The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1886-06-24
Recent Legal Decisions.

Received "On Deposit" words
ION deposit" in a receipt import con-
tract. Thus on receipt reading Re
ceived of Joseph S. Long 81 500 on de-
post in national currency" they embody
and imply a contract on the part of the
receiver to pay back the money to the
depositor on reasonable demand. (Long
VS.. Straus ct al. ; Supreme Court of In
diana
Trademark Fraud-It is fraud on
a person who has established business
for his goods and carries it on under a
given name with a particular mark for
some other person to assume the same
name or mark, or the same with slight
alteration, in such a way as to induce
persons TO deal with him in the belief
that they are dealing with the person
who has given a reputation to the name
and mark. pierce vs.. Guithard; Su-
preme Court of California;
Trustee as Purchaser-Where trus-
tee has an interest to protect by bid
ing at sale of the trust property, and
he makes special application to the
court for permission to bid, which.
upon the hearing of all the parties in
terested, is granted by the court, then
he can make purchase which is valid
and binding upon all the parties in
terested, and under which he can OBJ
tain and transmit perfect title.
(Scholle VS.. Scholle; Court of Appeals,
New York
Partners Power to Bind the Firm
A partner cannot in the absence of ex-
press authority bind the firm or his CO.
partner by note executed by him in
the firm name in transaction wholly
outside the apparent and actual scope
of the partnership business, even though
it might appear that the consideration
for the note was applied to the pay
ment of firm debt Bays Va Conner;
Supreme Court of Indiana.)
Forging Deceased Persons Name
The forgery of the name of person
deceased for the purpose of defrauding
the estate is as much the subject of in
dictment as the forgery of the name of
living person. Billings VS.. The State !;
! Supreme Court of Indiana
Depositor's Duty-A confidential
clerk altered checks after they were
signed, and the full raised amounts
were drawn by him. During his alb
sence from the Office his employer,
agent for firm, detected the forgeries
| in an attempt to balance his check
book by comparison with the pass-book
of the bank-a duty previously intrust-
ed to The clerk. The firm sued to re-
cover from the bank the balance to be
due on the deposit &C cunt as shown by
the agents check-book. Judgment was
rendered for the plaintiffs under in
structions from the court that the agent
was under no duty whatever to the
bank to examine his pass-book and the
vouchers returned with it in order to
ascertain whether his account was cor
rectly kept. On appeal this judgment
; was ordered reversed, and 1t was held
that the fa lure to examine and verify
the account as set forth in the pass
book, either by ones self or by some COM
petent person, is inconsistent with the
purpose for which pass-book is de-
manded and furnished. If such ex-
animation be made in good faith and
with ordinary diligence, and due notice
be gwen of any error or discrepancy
discove ed, the depositor d scharges
his duty to the bank, nor need the ex-
animal on be so close and thorough as
to exclude the possibility of any error
being overlooked. But where such ex-
animation is intrusted to another with
out proper superv sion, the mere des-
ignation of an agent to discharge a
duty resting pr mar ly upon the prin-
cipal can not be deemed the equivalent
of performance 10y the latter. q he
Leather Manufacturers National Bank
VS.. Morgan ct al. supreme Court OF
the United States.)