The Washington times., 1901-09-28
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

ciety took IL ceftiucate OF iife Insurance.,
payao.e to his fiancee. At the time OF his
death he was married. hut had been living
separate and apart from hts wife for sew
erai years. His nancee had no knowledge
or information whatever that he was n
married man at the time she became en-
gagged to him. On his death the insur-
ance fuad was claimed by the fiancee. and
also by the deserted wife. On the hearing
Oh the case Judgment was rendered in
taVor OF tho as:1ec. and on appeal this
Judgment was affirmed. Ii was coatended
on the part of the wife that the deceased
oelhg at the time n married man. the
hancee could not become engaged to marry
MIN. and therefore was not legal fiancee.
ana that such relationship under the
circumstances would be against good
morals. and consequently Illegal But the
court tSupreme Court of California; held
that If any fraud or deception had been
used In procuring the insurance in favor
OF the Hancee the insurance company
could have declared the policy void and
that the provision limiting the benefciar-
les OF policy to those having an interest
IN the life of the insured Is primarily de-
signed 10 protect the insurance company,
and may therefore be waived by II, as was
done In this case, by its payment OF tho
money into court. (Toodmen of the
world vs. Rutledge. s. Pac. Rep, 1867
The city council of waterviiet. n. Y,
acting under its charter. which gives the
council power to enact ordinances to reg
ulate the speed of street cars, passed
penal ordinance limiting the speed of
street cars in the city to six miles an
hour. On application of the railway COM
pany. Judge Chester of the Supreme Court
granted an injunction restraining the
municipal authorities from enforcing the
ordinance of the council on the ground
that the ordinance was unreasonable and
void in limiting the speed of the cars to
only SIX miles an hour, as such speed Is
detriment to the company and to the
public service In his opinion Judge Ches-
ter said: The interests of the public re-
quire that cars in public streets shall be
operated at a rate of speed that shall be
low enough not to be dangerous to tho
safety of the person or property of those
using the streets, and the convenience OF
the public requires them to be operated
at as high a rate of speed as is CONNER
surate with reasonable safety. 1t
is clearly shown that cars can be and
have been operated with reasonable safe
ty at twelve miles per hour.
Where an owner of property which was
destroyed by fire had taken out a number
of insurance policies on the same, each Of
which contained mortgage clause"
making the insurance payable to a mort
gagee of the property. and the full value
OF the property destroyed was paid to such
mortgage by some of the insurance COM
panies, the Supreme Court OF Georgia, in
the case of Norwich Union Fire insurance
Society VS.. Wellhouse, held that such
owner thereafter had no right of action
against another insurance company, even
If before such settlement of the loss ii
may have been liable to him upon its
policy.
One who, though acting in entire good
filth, illegally disposes of property be-
longing to another. is held by the Supreme
Court of Georgia. In the case of Clarke
vs. Wheatley (5s s. z. Rep, 43O, to be
liable to account therefor; and IL. under
any circumstances, he has an equitable
right to demand that his Unauthorized
disposition of such property be ratified.
he must at least make a proper tender
of the proceeds arising therefrom, and
assume the burden showing that the value
of the property was not greater than the
amount realized therefor.
The fact that a promissory note sued
on is not properly stamped, as required
by the revenue act, is not sufficient to
authorize the rejection Of such a note as
evidence, holds the Supreme Court of Ala
bama, in the case of Hooper vs. Whitaker
$50 So Rep, 355). unless 1t be shown that
the omission to stamp II was with the
intent to evade payment of reveHnese-------
Under the laws of Vermont, Judge
Wheeler of the United States District
Court. in re Rooney G0s Fed. Rep, sop.
holds that wife's lands held by her un-
der deed without limitation. occupied by
her family, and farmed by her husband.
are not her separate property, and their I
products are assets of the husbands es-
tate in bankruptcy. 1 /.
nf
where the contract for marriage is proven.
the Supreme Court of California. in the
case of Liebrandt VS.. Sorg (65 Pac Rep.
109S), holds that evidence that plaintiff
told others of the contract is admissible.
not as tending to prove the agreement TO
marry, but for the purpose of showing
the humiliation and damage to the plain
tiff.
A bankrupt's liability for alirhony.
whether it had accrued az the tiree of
filing the petition or accrued thereafter.
is not aifected by his discharge in bank
Tuptcy. (foung vs.. Young. IL N. Y. supp,
9i4)
Upon the trial of one charged with the
offence Of using profane language with
out provocation, in the presence of fe-
male, the Supreme Court of Georgia. in
the case of Ray VS.. State tSs S. E. Rep
40S), holds that the accused may defend
by showing that he was provoked to use
the language by one other than such re-
male, the sutficiency of the proyocation
being question for the jury, under all
the circumstances of the case
While a notary public who is stock
holder and officer of a corporation has
such interest in the conveyance as dis
qualities him from conducting the sepa-
rate examination and acknowledgment of
the wife of grantor to the mortgage of
a homestead to said corporation, the Su-
preme Court of Alabama, in the case OF
National Building and Loan Association
VS.. Cunningham $50 So. Rep, 1850, holds
that such incompetency of the notary
public before whom the acknowledgment
was made, and who certified 1t, renders
the instrument invalid only upon direct
attack and not when collaterally assail-
ed, and in an action of ejectment by the
nortgagor against the corporation TO
which the mortgage was made, and who
purchased at the foreclosure sale. and
claims the property, sued for under such
mortgage, the invalidity of the mortgage
by reason of the notary's incapacity can
not be shown by eXtrinsic parol proof and
If the mortgage is otherwise valid the
plaintiff is not entitled to recover in such
action.
a person guaranteed the payment of all
goods purchased by certain firm for
certain amount The following month the
drm dissolved. without notice to the guar
antor. or to the party whose claim was
guaranteed, and thereafter the continuing
partner purchased goods In the name of
the former firm. Judge Thomas. of the
United States District Court. New York.
in re Cinque Q09 Fed. Rep. 49, held that
the firm was not dissolved as regards the