The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-05-29

The rediscounting Of paper by one bank
with another is held. In Auten VS., M Sa
mt OF the usual course of business so az
to give notice that it may be In excess OK
authority.
The sender Of a telephone message 70
IL by telegraph, is held. In Garland vs. West.
ern Union Telegraph Company, (Mich-) -
I. r; a. a, $50 ss,d to be be S nna nes know Sy sha les an
messages must be given to the agent IN
writing.
The right of a building. loan and invest.
ment society 70 execute negotaole paper ~
held in Grommes VS.. Sullivan &c: Z; app.
nth Cd 43 L. r. A. fs. to be implied IN tne
power to incur debts for various prsposcs
and to sell and mortgage property. The an
notation to this case reviews the other de-
cisions on the subject.
The mere fact that the sale and drinking
Of intoxicsting . ii9u oS;ee Is 0 OF q s soc iaf'c club.
and that only member are permltteo ia sne
rooms, is held. in Norman VS.: state Ca,
az =. r.. A, s9s, insufficient 10 make the
Mace any less a tipping house within the
restrictions OF a statute.
A state statute forbidding all but duly ap-
pointed agents OF transportation companies
ia held in People ,ex rel, Tyroler VS.: War
den ew York City Prison On. VI ST.
RI to be In Violation Of the const,tu,
tioi ranty Of liberty. and not 1ustined
as srcise OF police power
Junction against the construction and
one. ton of an electric railway on a public
street S', without ,ef fsassion sSsnGairy " VS. aef Bir.
mingham Il. & f. Co. Ala.). AZ L. *. A:
ga, on the ground that the construction OF
for which COMPENSATION could be had at law.
The jurisdiction OF a court TO enjoin a
foreign insurance company against coneca.
ing excessive assessments from a resident OF
for nonpayment. Is denied in Clark vs..
Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association %.
Cd IS I. r A. $40, on the ground mat the
relief scueh would interfere with the m
ternal affairs OF the corporation.
A penalty for failure Of a railroad COM
pany TO furnish cars 10 a shipper Is en-
forced in Houston rs : 81 East = Me sTexe "a L. r.
A. 225. and Il Is held that there was no ne
cessity OF a contract for the cars 10 make
them. A note TO this case reviews the au-
thorities on the duty to furnish cars 10
shippers
Contingent debts or contingent liabilities.
under the bankruptcy act of 1861 are held
in Wight VS.. Gottschalk CTenn-). AZ l.. r.
A. 1s9. not TO include a liability on a cove
nant OF warranty so long as there was no
hostile assertion OF paramount title. and.
therefore, this was not cut OF by a dis
charge In bankruptcy rendered before the
breach OF the covenant had ripened into an
actual demand.
passenger carried beyond destination.
and placed by the conductor In a hotel 10
await a return train on the following day. Is
held, IN central otOfSld fNahloao 1ohtPoHy
VS.. Price tGa.) 43 l.. r. A. 4e. TO have no
right OF action against the railroad COM
pany for damages sustained at the notel In
consequence Of its proprietor's negligence.
unless the conductor had express authority
TO constitute him the carriers agent In
caring for the passenger.
The failure 10 construct fire escapes on Q
hotel as required by an ordinance Is held.
in Weeks VS.. McNulty CTenn.) AZ l.. X.
A. 1s5, insufficient TO make the proprietor
liable for the death OF a guest by fire. where
IL does not appear that the fire escape would
have afforded him any benent. but there Is
evidence that he had locked himself In his
room and tried TO break the door 20 make
his escape. and also that he might have
| to the roof OF an adjoining building.