Albuquerque morning journal., 1914-12-03

liver To him promissory notes for the
slNty-fivc per cent. which was done.
but g al that time had no knowledge
ot the secret preference given M and
did not base his demand upon that
fact, hut such fact caused u to exc
cute the notes. because OF his fear that
q would uncurlh the fraud. and an
the creditors would attempt Ia avoid
the composition Held, that The
minds Of the contracting parties did
not meet and agree upon the consider
alton. Held further. that while G.,
upon discovering the fraud, could
avoid the transaction, and recover the
balance Of his claim. such fraud when
discovered would not relate back TO
the execution OF the notes, and supply
n consideration, which was not the
consideration upon which the minds
of The parties met and agreed.
After the voluntary release of a
debt, an express promise does not re-
ViVe l.. nor does IL form sufficient
consideration 10 support a new prom
Use.
A naked agreement BY one rnrty.
not to engage In busnt sa IN comnet-
tlon with another party, IL in contra
Ncntion OF public policy, and therefore
void
Where a contract IN restraint OF
trade Is subsidiary TO the main pur-
pose OF dlsposing OF an established
business, or other legitimate objocl,
and the restraint Is no broader than
is necessary to protect the good will
OF the business sold, the restraint is
reasonable ana the contract valid.
The Normcnt Case.
Tile court will not pass upon the e.
feet of "a motion BY both parties for
an instructed verdict. where there ls
no evidence In the record. which
would have warranted a verdict for
The appellant, II the cause had been
submitted TO the Jury Evidence re-
viewed. Held, that the court properly
directed verdict for appellee.
No representations. true or fnlsc,
made by one maker Of "a note To an.
other. no secret understanding be-
tween such makers. 40 Inducements
offered By one 10 The other. affect the
validity OF the instrument IN The hands
OF the rayee anless he knew Oi' was
chargeable with notice OF such facts.
The mere passivenefs OF the lfedl-
tor IN the collection of his debt, either
OF the principal debtor, or from col
lateral securities held by him ia not
grounds for discharglng
the surety
Where party, taking the deposit
ton Of a witncss, seeks to lmpeach
such witness by showing that he was
made a contrary statement. at anoth-
on time and place. as to the facts |
about which he tCstifios. il is incum-
bent upon such party 10 have the !
submitted to the witness.
into the deposition, in 7
order To lay the proper foundation for
is Introduction.
Whore The question rs 60 fhc I
amount OF money Judgment which /
plaintiff Is entitled to recover. if a |
recovery Ia 70 be had. Is not disputed. |
ana can be ascertaincd from tile !
plcadings, and is simply a matter OF
'nloulation, u verdict returned by I
he jury, finding the issues In the case
'or the plaintiff, without stating the
amount of the recovery, Is sufficient
o support q judgment
Where n party to a suit Is cognzant
" the fact that witness residing be-
iond the jurisdiction OF the court, can
cstify as to certain facts, material to
he issues in tha case. II Is his duty 4
10 take the deposition OF the absent A
Witness, ana, whore he does not do so.
" attempt 60 do SO in good faith, he
annot procure new trial on the
fround Of newly discovered evidence,
lascd on facts as to which such Wit
less viii testify
When party seeks TO iutify fall
ire to take the deposition OF wit
less. residing in another state, Il is
Incumbent uunu him IN aetn bliah fne
act that under the statutes of the
tate whore the witness resides, no
over exists In the courts OF that
tate to compel the attendance and
silmany Of the witness
Subsection 1876. section eGSS5, c.
l., 1897, refers only TO the rendition
( the Judgment and not to the entry
hereof.