The Portland daily press., 1895-05-11
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.
The following decis ions from the Law
court were announced yesterday:
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.

The following Qec1S ions lfOm tue Law
court we're announced yesterday:
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
Dorothea Matthias, executrix, VS.. Wendell
kirsch.
Resoript, Wiswell, IA made loan to
B. taking a note tor the amount loaned
secured by a chattel NOR tgage upon B S
stock of goods, and, as additional security,
a note of the defendant for $500, payable to
B an6 oy him endorsed. AS between the
defendant, the MAKER OF the note, and the
payee there was no consideration, it was
given for the accommodation of the payee.
but it was endorsed by the payee and de-
Hvered TO before it's maturity. and as
collateral security for debt created con-
teinporaneously with such endorsement and
delivery.
At the maturity of this note it was re-
newed by another of like tenor, given by
the defendant, payable to B. and was taken
by A in place of the first note. Again, upon
the maturity of the second note u third, the
one in suit, was given under like circum-
stances. Both of the last two notes were de-
liyered to A and each was taken by in
the place of the preceding one, but neither
of these two was endorsed by the payee,
and there was no consideration Tor either
as between the maker and the payee.
This suit is brought by the executrix OF
the payee upon the last of he three notes.
for the benefit Of 4, the owner and holder
thereof. Held. That under these o1rcum-
stances the defendant cannot set up the
want OF consideration.
That the rights of the parties were estab-
Esbed by the first tote which the plaintiff
in interest took, at the time OF the creation
of the indebtedness from to her. he sub
sequent notes were mere renewals. extern
tions of credit.
That the note first giyen, being valid and
enforcible by the person for whose beEe fit
this action was brought, the surrender Of
that ote was good considera ion for the
second and that this is equally true as to
the substitution of the note in suit for the
second.
Exceptions sustained.
ANDRosCoGGIN COUNTY.
Ferdinand Penley vs. Charles S. Bessey.
Rescript by WisweIl, jim the sale OF
chattcls. the property passes at once on the
sale if such is the intent, although there il
afterwards to make delivery of the goods.
Such intent may be expressly declared
In the absence of an express agreement, the
intent that title should pass at the time OF
the contract, although The seller is to sub
sequently deliver, is inferred where pay.
ment in full s made.
The plaintiff bought of the defendant 6
yoke of oxen, the price was agreed upon
and fully paid in money, The plaintiff hac
no previous Acquaintance with the defendant
and had no knowledge as to his pecuniary
responsibility. The oxen were left with the
d ,fendant 10 be driven by BIN, the next
Gay, but one thereafter, TO a designat &c
place, and there to be delivered to the
plaintiff. Before the time agreed upon fol
delivery, without any fault of the defend
ant, one of the oxen was cast in the stal
and died. There was no express agreement
as to when the title should pass. he plain
tiff sued to recover back the purchase price
and the jury found for him. On motion