St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-08-07

The National Bank of Commerce, respond
ent VS.. The Chicago. Burlington North
ern Railroad Company, appellant. Judg-
IN ent reversed.
ent, VS.. The Wisconsin Central Company,
appellant Judgment reversed.
The Chicago Burlington & Northern Rail-
road Company, respondent, VS.. The L. II.
Sowle Elevator Company, appellant Or
der reversed.
The Wisconsin Central Company, respond
ent, VS.. The L. T. Sowle Elevator Com
pany, appellant. Order reversed.
New trials granted in oil four cases.
Vanderburgh, j., did not sit.
MITCHELL, J.
A check on a bank is not payment,
but is only so when the money is re-
ceiyed OH it; and there is no presump-
ton that a creditor takes a check in alb
solute payment arising from the mere
fact that he accepts it from debtor.
Where goods are sold for cash on deliv-
cry and payment is made by the pur-
chaser by check on his banker, such
payment is only conditional, and the de-
livery Of the goods also conditional; and
il the check, on due presentation. is
diShonored, the vendor may retake the
goods, even from an innocent sub
Vendee, for value. unless he has been
guilty of such negligence or lacheS as
would eQuitably estop him from SO
doing.
Held also, in accordance with the de-
ciSionS of the federal courts and the
great weight OF authority elsewhere,
that bill of lading issued by a station
| or shipping agent of a railroad company
or other common carrier. without re-
| ceiving the goods named in it for trans
portation, imposes no liability upon the
nar fO on if3n ny ar
indorsee for value, and that the carrier
is not estopped by the statements in the
| bill from showing that no goods were iii
fact received for transportation. The
| fact that the goods were taken from the
| possession of the carrier by one having
| title paramount to that of the consignor
| is good defense to an action by the
consignee or indorsee of the bill of lad
| ing for the non-delivery of the property.
| s. G. Anderson, respondent, VS.. ]. H. Oge,
| appellant. Order affirmed. DICKINSON, j.
The evidence not showing that a
| horse was kept and used as race horse,
it is not decided whether race horse is
exempt from execution. The owner of
a horse levied. upon may avail himself
emption, without bringing his other
horses from another county so that the
| officer may levy upon them.
| Lewis Stein, appellant, VS.. Peter P. Swenson
| ct al, respondent. order refusing a new
| trial reversed. DICKINSON, D.
A contract for the loan of money for a
| stated time, at rate of interest not
| usurious, is not avoided, and the
! original debt forfeited, by contempor-
| aneous agreement not intended as a
means of evading the usury law-that
| at the option of the borrower the time
of payment may be extended by the
payment of more than the legal rate OF
| interest for the period OF the extension.
If a general agent, loaning the money
of his principal. makes an illegal ex-
| action from the borrower solely for his
own benefit. and without the knowl-
| edge, authority or sanction of his prin-
| cipal. who in no manner ratifies it, the
latter is not affected by such illegal ex-
! action. But the acts of the general
] agent are to be presumed to have been