The Portland daily press., 1900-01-11
FROM THE LAW COURT.
Judge Haskell Hands Down His Find.
ings in Many Cases.

the Supreme judicial court:
Waldo 90.
Fred W. Brown, JE, In equity, va.
Isaac II. Gould. Rescript
Haskell, 1.-THE insolvsnt, Of whom
the plaintiff 10 assignee. gave q mort
gage 70 secure q preexisting debt, the
mortgagor being insolvent, as the mort
gages we'll knew, but the NOR tgage had
been recorded more. than four months
before the mortgagor filed his petition
to Be sdjudged an insolvent debtor, and
therefore it was not In frsud of the
statute against preferences. Neither was
ita fraud under six months clause Of
the insolvent law. for IL was given to Sc
cure bona tide indsbtsdness and had L o
elements Of fraud. To be sure II worked
a preference, bnt in q legal way. 1he
creditors slept upon their rights and al
lowed It to teeome valid under the pro-
visions of the insolyent law.
Bill dismissed with costs.
Kennebeo,s 8.
Charles F.Johnson, assignee, vs.. Show
heaan Savings Bank. Resoript.
Haskell, J.-Ware, plaintiff's assignor,
bought certain logs, knowing them to
be mortgAged to the defendant bank.
He sent his notes, payable to the order
Of his vendor. on three, six and nine
months, for more than was due on the
mortgage to the bank. 90 that the vsndor
could not appropriate them and leave
the mortgage outstanding. Ware failed.
The bank did not apply the notes to the
payment OF Its mortgage debt and cancel
or surrsnder the mortgage. Il never IN
tended to surrender its security, and II
never did.
Judgment for defendant.
Piscataquis 81.
Andrew j. Weymouth ct ais, VS.. Isaac
BsathAm. Rsscript.
Haskell, J.-Hs who undertakes to
drive logs intermixed with his own at
the expense Of the owner Of than must
drive them reasonably clean to their des-
tlpatlon before he can recover oompen-
sation therefore. This the plAiatiff did
not do, and therefore he cannot reover.
Exceptions overruled.
HANCOCK. 10.
Ii. IL. Nevens & Co., VS.. Bulgsr Broth
ers. Resoript.
Haskell, jim q suit to recover mef-
chandise sold to partnership from
which one partner had retired unknown
to the plaintiff. the publication of notice
of dissolution, n ot known to the plain
tin, Is inadmissible In evidence. Postal
cards, signed by the defendant firm. or
dering goods of the plaintiff were oompe-
tent evidence to show the sale Of the
good s and for this purpose were admis-
sable, eve though they were not written
by the authority Of the retiring partner.
All the partners Of firm that has had
continuous dealing with another are
neId liable to hiru for goods purchased Of
him upon the credit of the firm after dis
solution Of 1t, II he have no notice there
of.
Exceptions overruled.
Ssgadahoo IS.
Samuel knight ct ais. VS.. Eugene
Thomas at Als. Resnript.
Haskell. J.-It Is settled law in this
state that writ of mand anus can orly
issue at the instance Of public officers to
subservs a public right; but an individ-
ual may move for the writ when his per-
sonal rights have bean invaded beyond
those rights that he enjoys as part Of
the public and thai are common TO every
one.
munity persons who pay taxes and per-
sons who do not. Their interest Is the
raising Of revenue by ia xation or othsr'
wise to provide for tho expenses Of gov
lernment, public works, public institu.
tions and pubic charges. Tbe individ-
ual taxpayers interest Is In common with
all these, but he has another interest Pc
culiar to himself, that taxes shall be as,
sssfed equally, 90 that his burden shAll
not be greater than equality OF taxation
shall impose. His personal interest,
therefore, By the omitting Of property
from taxation in his own town would
be invaded thereby bsyond that enjoyed
in common with the put 10, and he may
we'll be allowed to move for the writ In
protection Of it.
An individal taxpayer In Q town ma y
havs the writ to compel the ASSESSORS
to act; that is to asssss all the pro psrty
in their town, but ths valuation there OF
must be nxed by them according to their
honest Judgment. under their oath.
which cannot be revised BY msndamus.
For the land not assessed the petition.
ar might have had the writ II the court
below, In Its discretion. haa seen ut to
award ii, for the writ Is a prerogative
TO be withheld or granted in the exer
else of discretion. 1t is not q writ ol
right. To ifsue IL now would be an idls
osIemo ony. 1t is too late The asesss
msnts were long since completed. Ex
oeptiou over ruled. Petition dismissed.