The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-04-22

order or bank draft on Richmohd OF
New York" 1t had been the plaln-
tiff's regular custom to pay the pre-
minums bv his individual check on
Goldsboro, and on the morning Oh
July 25th. he mailed such check ~
nayment of the premium IN ample
time TO reach Richmond, Va, the OF
flee of defendant, in due course o'
mail bv 6 y. m. the same day. but the
letter did not reach Richmond TIL
a. m. July Goth.
Held that the policy was not for
feited and that the plaintiff was not
negligent in relying upon the regu-
l,rity of the mails in making the re
mittance.
BAKER V. BREM.
Error.
\ town constable can execute pro-
cess under Section 1910 of The Code
only when it is addressed to him rs
such town constable.
The authority conferred by Section
DOS of The Code for amending pro-
cess to show jurisdiction. cannot be
extended to confer jurisdiction.
STATE V. HUSKINS.
Affirmed.
In an Indictment under Section 9Sj
subsection of The Code for burning
stacks of oats. straw and fodder. Il
motion to quash for that the indict
ment failed to state that the stacks
were out of doors was properly over
ruled. State V. Avery, 100 n. {. 79S,
distinguished.
THARPE V. HOLCOMB.
New trial.
In the absence Of some hostile reia
tons or an intent to hold alone. the
possession of one tenant in common
is presumed to be the possession of all
the tenants. Adverse possession for
twenty years by one tenant in COM
mon, is necessary to bar his Gotten
ants.
CLAPP V. INSURANCE ASSOCIA-
TION.
Affirmed
Where one purchases a house and
lot jointly with another. pays part
of the purchase money-the other
purchaser paying nothing-and holds
the land with his joint owner under
a bond to make title, such equitable
interest therein is an insurable inter
est: and where in such case as IL
Surance company, with knowledge
through its agent of the joint owner 6
limited interest in the property, in
sures the same for his benefit, the
company cannot afterwards dispute
the validity of the policy; and in az
action to recover such policy, the rep
resentatives of the joint owner. who
did not insure, are not necessary par
ties.
BRINKLEY V. BALANCE & co.
Error.
a married woman was engaged in
mercantile business under the firn
name of Balance d Co., and her hus-
band, j. W. Balance. made written
order for goods, signing the same
balance d Co., by j. W. Balance =;
Held that this constituted Il written
assent of the husband and the wife's
personal estate is bound thereby-en-
titling the plaintiff to a recovery.
Bates V. Sultan, III y. {. o., cited and
approved.
GRAY V. LITTLE.
Error.
In an actit n against a physician 10
recover daIrages for his alleged care
less. unskilIful and inhuman treat
ment of plaintiffs wife in her child
he'd sickness. the trial Judge commit
ted error in charging the jury that
if they found that the woman's death
was only FASTENED or accelerated by
such treatment they should award
only nominal damages. Lewis V. Raj
eigh. II y. {. 800; Coley V. Statesville
121 y. {. so; Womack's Digest No.
1924
SNIPES V. CITY OF WINSTON.
Where the board of aldermen of Il
city, whose province it is to elect Il
street boss contract with one If its
members 10 perform the duties of said
office at Il stipulated price, the mem
Der so elected participating IN his
election, such contract is void as
against pub ic policy. and viii not De
enforced.
GRIFFITH Y. RICHMOND.
Error.
a chattel mortgage, admitted tt
probate ana registered, is prima evil
dence of it, execution, subject to re-
buttal (S7 y. c. 249: 116 y. {. 751j.
and the mortgage itself will estoH
the mortgagor to deny his Response
bility for the forthcoming of the
~ operty, When called for to lc APP
piled to the debt.
An omissi IN to charge is not ground
of exceptions unless an instruction on
the point is asked AMI refused.