The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-02-10

employer is depositcr, and no notice is
given TO the bank by the employer until
two years after the FIRST forgery I. wfs
held by the Supreme Court OF Pennsylvania
in the case OF Myers VS.. Southwestern
Bank "a ALL. 2so) that the bank was not
negligent In honoring the checks, and as
between the bank and the employer the
latter cannot recover, as he alone was re-
sponsible for the loss on account of his
failure to examine the checks after pay
ment and reject them in a reasonable time.
The court said that a proper examination
of the bank book would have shown the
first foTgeres, and that this was d duty
which the depositor owed to the bank.
mo objection" said the court, having
been made at the time of the first settle
ment. the bank had right to assume tina.
everything was correct, including the two
checks purporting to be signed by him.
His silence was tantamount to a declara
ton to that effect, and in afterward hon.
oring checks signed by the same person
the bank had right TO consider the fact
that these signatures had been at least
tacitly recognized by the plaintiff as genu-
ine.'
The recent case of the Mechanic Ma
tional Bank OF Trenton VS.. Harter IA All.
Rep. 7i5l, decided by the Supreme Court
of New Jersey, likewise holds that the
return to a depositor of his check with Il
forged endorsement, together with his bal
anced pass book casts OF him the duty OF
exercising reasonable care and diligence
to examine the vouchers and the account
as stated by the bank and to inform the
bank if any errors are thus discoverable.
novel case. involving the question
whether a person has legal right, in
drilling for oil, to use pump which, by
its power. draws the oil from adjoining
( property has recently been decided in the
| affirmative by the Supreme Court OF Penn
syIyania In Jones VS.. Forest Oil Com
pany al Att. Rep, 1919. The parties to
this suit own adjoining farms, containing
oil. and the defendant, operating gas
pump of powerful suction, drew oil and
| gas from the plaintiffs farm, thereby de-
! creasing the latters production. The
{ plaintiff contended that there was GER
tain fixed amount Of oil and gas under his
! farm. in which he had an absolute prop
1 erty. The court held, however, that the
! oil and gas belong to him only while they
| are part of his land; but when they NIL
CRATE TO the lands OF his neighbor, or be-
| come under his control, they belong TO
the neigi Dor, and that possession OF the
I land therefore. is not necessarily possess
! sion of the gas and oil. Though this
( particular question is somewhat OF nov
/ city," said the court, 1.-The principles which
control it are very familiar, and perfectly
| well settled"
house kept by the Salvation Army for
the charitable purpose of affording shell
| ter to the poorer classes was held by the
/ Court of Queens Bench in the case OF
| Logsdon vs. Booth ga Solicitors journal,
| 1857. to be a common lodging house. I'M
der the statute requiring common lodg-
ing houses to be registered. The court ex-
| pressed regret that they were forced to
this decision, and hoped that those who
we're charged with the enforcement OF
the law would do all they could consis-
tently with their duty to avoid anything
like harshness or unreasonableness in its
| enforcement.