Morning journal and courier., 1892-09-21
RECENT DECISIONS.

The MaIIory-Wheele Company Case
The Law on a Deg Case-Taxabiltty
ofForeisn Stocks-Trust Funds and
Investments-MayD DO Business I'm.
der an Assumed Firm Name-Build.
ers, Lfens-The Railroads ana the
Carriage OF Live Stock-Storage OF q
Hearse.
The sixty-frst volume of Connecticut |
law reports is out The following are some |
of the cases of most public interest:
In Mallory vs. Mallory Wheeler company, |
three directors of corporation, at meet |
ing of the directors, of whom they were |
majority, procured the passage OF three
votes, each appointing one of the three an |
agent to contract with another of the three
for services for five years, respectively as
president, treasurer and secretary. Inc
stockholders had become dissatisfied with
these officials and the latter by this action
intended to steal march upon them. The
court held that it made no difference, that
there was three separate votes; that they
were all related and were the same as If
embodied in one vote; and that the three
directors were thus acting together as
majority of the board to secure
to themselves advantageous contracts
with the company. The court held
the contracts under the authority thus
given void, and say that set is well-set-
tied equitable rule that anyone acting in
Judiciary relation shall not be permitted to
make use of that relation to benefit his
own personal interest,"" Also that "the
directors of corporation occupy posi-
ton of the highest trust and confidence,
and the utmost good faith is required In
the exercise of the powers conferred upon
them"
In Starkey's appeal from probate it is
held that where services have been render
ed in pursuance of an agreement between
the parties that compensation should be
made for them by will, and the party re-
ceiving them has died without making the
expected compensation, the party render
| ing the services is entitled to compensa-
/ ton out of the estate of deceased, as a
creditor, for the value of the services.
The case of Simmonds va. Holmes was
| dog case. A statute provides that call
| dogs found doing or attempting to do mis-
| chief, when not under the care of any
person, may be killed" The plaintiffs
| valuable dog was found by the defendant
| lying asleep upon bed of young plants
in bis garden, and he he shot hot him , The
"mischief' within the meaning of the
statute, that the right to kill it was not
affected by the consideration of its value
as compared with the value of the proper
ty destroyed or injured, and that it did not
affect the case that the dog was regis
tered one.
In Lockwood vs. Town of Weston the
question of the taxability of stocks of for
eign corporations owned in Hartford arose.
The statute provides that "the list of any
! person need not include any property
situated in another state, when it can be
made satisfactorily to appear to the as
SCISSORS that the same is fully assessed and
taxed in such other state" The court held
that the stocks of corporations located in
other states are taxable here when owned
by residents of this state, but that such
foreign corporations are presumed to be
taxed in the state where they are located,
and that it is the duty of the assessors to
ascertain that they are not SO taxed and
not of the taxpayer to prove that they are
In Smiths appeal from probate the
court of probate had rejected an executor
named in will on the ground that he was
unfit for the trust, and had appointed an
administrator. On an appeal taken the
supreme court held that the rule of law as
to who might be executors, was that all
persons might be who were mentally caps-
BILE of executing the trust, and were not
specially disqualified, and that want of
integrity or of business experience could
not be regarded as a sufficient ground
viii.
| In Clark vs. Beers the statute specifying
, securities in which trust funds may be in.
. vested came up for construction. The
: court held that trustees were not limited
to the securities specified, but, if they in
/ vested in other securities, they did 80 a.
their own risk, while they would be pro
| tected in Investments made under the stat
ute, whatever the result, if they acted il
3 good faith.
In Solomon vs. Hopkins the court hold
/ that man may adopt any business NAM
that he pleases and he will be bound by it
, In this case the defendant has signed
: note by the name of ga. J. & J. a. Hop
r kins"-neither name being his own, ane
4 the court held that, upon proof that b.
! was doing business under that name, b.
q | would be liable on the note.
1 The case of William Woodruff gave
: construction to law as to builders liens
g The court was divided on it, The owne
Q of piece of land in city of about three
r quarters of an acre erected three separat
dwelling houses on it, and engaged tn
plaintiff to furnish all the lumber for tn
three houses. The plainti IF did SO, keep
ing no separate account and recording on
lien on the houses and the entire lot Eacl
building, with its share of the land, wa
. mortgaged by itself in the course of it
construction, and when all the houses wer
n completed they were rented separately
There had been from the first no intention
to use them together or for any commo
! purpose. The court held the plaintiff
u lien not to be valid one, and they la,
IS down the rule that it is essential to til
" validity of single lien upon separate build
10 ings that they shall be erected for som
general and connected use.
In Coupland vs.. the Housatonic Railroa
| he II oir bod
l. liable blooded mare from Great harrington
o to Danbury, and on the passage the mar
was so injured that she died. The iniur
grew out of the fact that she was sent in
s common box car, which was too low TO
d her head and so large that she was throw
f about in it and finally broke her leg. I
appeared that the freight agent of tn
railroad at Great Darlington INFORMED
l. the plaintiffs agent, who brought tn
/ cars with high roofs for horses ant
with stalls to keep them from bein,
: thrown down, but that the charg
Z would be higher, and the agent decided t
a take the common box car, and padded tn
;, roof to prevent the mares head from bein,
hurt, as well as put hood on her head
n He also stated the value of the mare to b
i to the value stated, and this value. wa
i entered in the bill of lading. The cour
}. held that the railroad company could no
l. be regarded as responsible for the injur,
to the marc, and that if it was the plain
!. tiff could not recover the real value 90,
e 000), but only the value stated by him t,
the freight agent and entered on the bill
9 of lading.
d In Bradley vs. Buckingham the defend
ant was keeper of a livery stable, and tn
q plaintiff, an undertaken, stored with hin
(paying for the storage) a hearse, TO-
@ which, when used, the defendant furnish
ed horses. There was no place agreed upo,
It where the hearse should be kept, but i
was naturally and conveniently kept a
+ the stable. The defendant had anothe
d stable, where he kept horses and SOM
carriages, and after awhile, for his ow,
q convenience, he placed the hearse in tina
i stable, and there 1t was soon after bnrned
j It was no more exposed to fire Their
than in the stable where it had been
}, After the fire it appeared that tn
y plaintiff had had It insured as be
ing at the first stable, and tn
v insurance was therefore lost. The plaintiff
j had not been notified of the change O.
= q -