sonable expenses incurred in the issue of the policy is a question for the jury.-Burlington Ins. Co. v McLeod.-Filed Oct. 9, '85-Kans. goods on credit is liable in a criminal action. If the minor who thus obtains goods resells them to an innocent purchaser for value, such purchaser takes title which cannot be assailed on account of the fraudulent repre- FALSE REPRESENTATION-EXCHANGE OF sentations on which the minor purchased PROPErty-NegligencE.—Where in an exthem. But where the goods are thus sold to a change of property including lands lying in third party and the original owner replevies a distant place, the party falsely representing them, the burden of proof rests on the latter the value of the lands and improvements purchaser to show the entire good faith of thereon, may be called upon to rescind or the transaction.-Neff v. Landis.-Filed respond in damages in an action of deceit Oct. 5, 1885.-Pa: and the grantee held justifyable in relying upon the statements concerning the land FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF PERSONAL without going to examine them.-Ladd v. PROPERTY-A BENEFIT ACCRUING FROM Piggott.-Filed Sept. 21, 1885.—Ill. THE USE OF PROPERTY A SUFFICIENT CON SIDERATION.--Where property was transfered and an actual delivery made, of property to be used in establishing a ferry from which it was supposed benefits would accrue to the transferrer. Held that this is sufficient consideration to support the transfer as against creditors.-Lewin v. Hopping.-Filed Sept. 28, 1885.-Cal. FALSE PRETENSES INDICTMENT FORUSING FIRM NAME.-In an indictment for false representations made to a firm it is not necessary to set out the individual names of the members of the firm. It is sufficiently deffinite to allege that they "relied on such false representations."-State v. Williams— Filed Oct. 9, 1885.-Ind. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE. -A debtor may disFRAUD-PRESUMPTIONS OF-BURDEN OF pose of his property, with intent to defraud PROOF.-The general rule is that the party his creditors and yet give the purchaser for alleging fraud must prove it, but where it value a good title, if he is a bona fide pur- appears that one party has the advantage of chaser for value, and has no notice of the the other by superior knowledge of the subfraud. Where a chattle mortgage was fraud-ject matter of the contract, or in any way ulently made, and whilst an action is pend- has an overpowering influence over the ing to establish the fraud, a third party, not other, the burden of proof may be shifted.— a party to the action, is not bound to take Crawford v. Hoeft.-Filed Sept. 29, 2885.— notice of the action pending.-Zoeller v. Mich. Riley.-Filed Oct. 6, 1885.-N. Y. FIRE INSURANCE-SURRENDER OF POLICY AND PAYMENT OF SHORT RATES.-REASONABLE EXPENSES.-Where a policy of insurance provides that the insured may at any time surrender the policy and have it cancelled, by paying "short rates" established by the company, he is not obliged to pay any premium notes which may have been given before he can demand the cancellation of the policy, but he is only required to pay in cash an amount sufficient to cover the short rates for the time the policy has run. Rea FRANCHISE-USURPATION OF--BURDEN OF PROOF.-Where proceedings in quo warranto are commenced for usurpation of a corporate franchise, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that it was legally formed, and the answer should set forth the facts from which its legal existence will appear. The fact that the relator, on whose account the proceedings were commenced, was an officer of the corporation, at the time does not bar the maintance of the action.-People v. Lowden.-Filed Sept. 28, 1885.-Cal. FRAUDULENT TRANSFER-GIFT BY HUS M. P. Ry. Co. v. Maltby.-Filed Oct. 9, 1885 BAND ΤΟ WIFE BEFORE INSOLVENCY. -Kans. Where a husband transfers property to his wife whilst he is solvent or before any con- GOODS FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED-Bona templation of insolvency, such transfer or fide PURCHASER-NOTICE.-Goods frauduconveyance will be upheld as against the lently obtained by one who is insolvent and husbands creditors. The question of fraud subsequently sold to a third party will pass is one of fact to be determined upon all the a good title, although the purchaser knows facts and circumstances bearing upon the at the time the purchase is made that the good faith of the transaction. Dealings goods have not been paid for by the party of between husband and wife, or between those whom he purchases. Such knowledge is near of kin, are not necessarily a badge of not notice of his fraudulently obtaining fraud, and if the good faith of the transaction said goods.-Hanchet v. Kimbark.—Filed is attacked fraud must be proved.-State v. Sept. 21, 1885.—Ill. Wallace et al.-Filed Sept. 26, 1885.—Ia. FIRE AND INSURANCE-DECEIT INSERTING FALSE GARNISHMENT-JUDGMENT AGAINST GAR BY AGENT NISHEE WITHOUT SERVICE ON THE DEBTOR. STATEMENTS IN A Judgment rendered against a garnishee, where the debtor has not been served and has had no notice, is void for want of jurisdiction. The statute provides that “no judgment shall be entered in any garnishment proceeding condemning the property or debt in the hands of the garnishee until the principal defendant shall have had ten days notice of such proceedings."-Wise v. Rothschild.—Filed Oct. 6, 1885.—Ia. APPLICATION - LIABILITY OF COMPANY. Where it appears that the assured made true statements, but the agent so wrote his statements in the application that as stated they were false, the company cannot defend against the policy for a breach of the conditions on the ground of false statements, in the application. It will not avail the company although the policy contain the clause that the agent taking the application shall be considered the agent of the assured and not the agent of the company.—Sullivan v. Phanix Ins. Co.-Filed Oct. 9, 1885.-Kan. GARNISHMENT-CHECK DRAWN BEFORE SERVICE OF ATTACHMENT-CHECK MADE AND DELIVERED WORKS AN ASSIGNMENT.— A check drawn on a bank by a debtor before service of garnishee process, but not presented for payment until after service, should be paid by the bank. It operates as an assignment of the amount it is drawn for. If the check is drawn in another state on a bank in Illinois, the law of Illinois governs. Nat. Bank of America v. Ind Bkg. Co.— Filed Sept. 21, 1885.—Ill. HUSBAND AND WIFE-MORTGAGE OF GARNISHMENT-DEBTOR AND CREDITOR HER OWN OR HER HUSBANDS LANDS. LIVING IN ONE STATE AND THE GARNISHEE Where a wife joins with her husband in exeIN ANOTHER.—A creditor and debtor living cuting a mortgage on the husbands lands, in Missouri, and a creditor of the debtor upon foreclosure of the mortgage she is living in Kansas, the latter cannot be gar- entitled to have the husbands two thirds innisheed for a debt which is payable in terest sold first, and if that does not satisfy Missouri, and which by the laws of the latter the lien, then her interest may be sold. The state is exempt under laws of Missouri.-wife cannot make a valid mortgage on her own separate property for the purpose of constructed bridges and culverts negligently paying her husbands debt.-Cuppv Campbell Filed Oct. 8, 1885.—Ind. and imperfectly which are washed away by act of God, and damage accrues to land and crops on adjacent land, the owner may recover damages therefor, although he were in Some degree at fault himself.-R. V. Ry. Co. v. Fink.-Filed Sept. 29, 1885.-Neb. IMPRISONEMENT FOR DEBT-BASTARDY HOMESTEAD Mortgage―JUNIOR MORTGAGEE TAKING AN ASSIGNMENT OF A SENIOR MORTGAGE.—Where land is mortgaged in which a homestead is included, and another and junior mortgage is placed upon that part of the land not including the homestead, PROCEEDINGS JUDGMENT FOR MAINTAINif the junior mortgagee pays the senior ANCE NOT A DEBT.—The constitutional promortgage and takes an assignment of the vision that "no person shall be imprisoned same, he does not thereby aquire a lien on for debt, except in case of fraud," has refthat part which constitutes the homestead. erence to liabilities on contract. A charge of The mortgage as applied to the homestead maintainance adjudged against the father of is satisfied and discharged.—Grantv Parsons an illegitimate child is not a debt in the -Filed Sept. 25, 1885.—Ia. sense in which that term is used forbidding imprisonment.-In Re Petition of WheelerFiled Oct. 9, 1885.-Kans. HOMESTEAD-RIGHTS OF THE WIDOWWHEN HER INTEREST BECOMES A VESTED RIGHT. The interest of the wife of a dece INSOLVENCY-PREFERENCE-FEE OF ONE dent, in the homestead, is only an incohate WHO DRAWS THE DEED. A deed of trust right, until her portion or interest is set off to her, and then it becomes a vested interest which she may sell and transfer.-Lake v. Page.-Filed July 31, 1885.-N. H. by a failing debtor, in which there is a reservation of fee for drawing the deed is void. It was provided in the deed that the trustee should disburse the funds placed in his hands as the law directed. The fee for drawing the deed becomes a debt of the insolvent, and as such could not be preferred. — Wolsheimer v. Revinus.—Filed July 22, 1885.-Md. INSURANCE -ELECTION TO REBUILDSEVERAL LIABILITY.-Where property was insured in a number of different companies, and after notice of loss the companies jointly declare their intention to rebuild, and subse- INSURANCE - FORFEITURE NOTICE OF quently, but before the work is commenced, DUES-Witness testifying TWICE TO SAME a compromise is effected between the FACT.-One of the conditions in a policy of assured and all the companies save one and insurance provided for the payment of $3 settlement had on a money basis. Held annually on September 1st, and another that the company not agreeing to the com- clause provided that if such dues were not promise is liable prorata for a money con-paid within 30 days after notice had been sideration and the amount for which it is liable is determined by the proportion of the amount insured by the policy, to the total loss, and the amount for which other companies settled cannot be taken as a guide in the measure of liability.-Good v. Buckeye M. F. Ins. Co.-Filed Oct. 6, 1885.-O. INSTRUCTIONS- -NEGLIGENCE COMBINED WITH THE ACT OF GOD.-CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. given the policy should be forfeited thereby. Held that where no notice had been given no forfeiture could be claimed. Allowing a witness to be called a second time to testify to the same fact or facts is not such an error as will form ground for reversal when it can work no prejudice to the adverse party.― C. M. Ben. Assn. v. Spies.-Filed Sept. 25, 1885.-Ill. IMPOUNDING STOCK-LIEN FOR REMUNER-Where a railway company ATION.-Where a party takes up stock which LIFE INSURANCE-DEFAULT IN PAY is trespassing upon cultivated lands he must had before it.—Kent v. Bd. of Commissioners agree to arbitration as to the amount he is Filed Oct. 6, 1885.-N. Y. entitled to charge the owner, and refusing to do so he looses his lien upon the stock and the owner may recover possession MENT OF PREMIUM-WAIVER OF DEFAULT. by replevin.-Dierkes v. Weilage.-Filed In a life insurance policy where by its Oct. 6, 1885.-Neb. conditions the policy is forfeited upon default in payment of premiums due, and the ILLEGAL ARREST AN ESCAPING DEBTOR assured being in default, the company write ARRESTED WITHOUT SUIT BEING COMMENCED him, that if he will remit immediately they OR WITHOUT ISSUE OF WARRANT DAMAGES. will waive the forfeiture and credit him with -A debtor in removing his family to another the money paid, if he remit 23 days after state is arrested while yet in the state, after receipt of the company's letter, it is not ahe had proceded 300 miles on his journey, compliance with their offer, and the comno suit having been commenced against him pany is not bound to receive it.-Servoss and no warrant issued, but simply upon a v. Western Mutual Aid Soceity-Filed telegram sent by the creditor, to the sheriff Oct. 6, 1885.-Iowa. of the county through which he was travell ing. In an action for damages for false MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS SALE OF imprisonment it is Held that the arrest and BONDS-COMMISSION ALLOWED-VALIDITY imprisonment was illegal. Damages assessed OF BONDS ALREADY SOLD BEFORE JUDICAL should at least cover the actual damages in expence and loss of time.-Zimmerman v. Knox.-Filed Oct. 9, 1885.-Kans. INDEMINTY BOND-LIABILITY OF BONDSMEN-DEFALCATION OCCURRING AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF TERM.-The bond of a corporate officer expires with his term of office and bondsmen are not liable for a defalcation occuring after the term has expired for which the bond was given. Under the bylaws of the corporation the directors had power at any time to end the term and dismiss the officer. Where the term had expired and he held over awaiting the appointment of his successor his bondsmen were no longer responsible.-F. E. Co. v. Allen.Filed Sept. 26, 1885. Cal. JURISDICTION--POWER OF SUPREME COURT TO MODIFY PUNISHMENT IMPOSED.-Where the board of fire commissioners of New York City imposed certain punishment on a police officer for neglect of duty, the supreme court cannot review the case on a writ of certiorari where there is no question raised as to the jurisdiction of the board in the proceedings DECISION DECLAREING CONTRACT VOID.-- MORTGAGE-DISCHARGED BY MISTAKE— SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER. A mortgage having been dircharged by mistake, and the land sold and conveyed on the title of record, by the owner to his son, the purchaser cannot be charged with notice of the mistake in the discharge of the mortgage by In such reason of his relation to the seller. case, in an action by the mortgagee of the mortgage wrongfully discharged, to have the unlawful invasion by force, but he must use. only so much force as is necessary. A person having been arrested for making such defence will be discharged for want of probable cause for the action, and if the arrest is made for the purpose of injuring the person arrested, it will be sufficient proof of malice in an action for false arrest.-Casebeer v. Rice.-Filed Sept. 29, 1885.-Neb. lien of the mortgage reinstated, if there is any of the purchase money nnpaid by the son to the father, equity will decree judgment in the nature of a garnishee to the extent of the amount actually due under the mortgage so discharged.—Sheldon v. Holmes -Filed Sept. 29, 2885.—Mich. MARINE INSURANCE-CONTRACT TO IN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK EVIDENCE.-A woman being injured by reason of defective sidewalk, facts SURe-Default.—Where a preliminary conobtained by a physician in attendance upon tract is entered into for insurance, whereby her, are not admissible in evidence. Being an insurer agrees to insure a certain risk necessary that he should learn those facts before he could prescribe for her, they are privileged communications. Plaintiff may show how much she earned by her labor each day before the injury, for the purpose of showing thereby her bodily condition. Dalton v. Albion-Filed Sept. 20, 1885.Mich. FOR within a given time it may be enforced. Where the party seeking insurance becomes insolvent before the execution of the contract his assignee can take his place, but the insurer has a right to demand payment or a valid note for the premium, or may declare the contract off.-Hubbel v. P. M. Ins. Co. Filed Oct. 6, 1885.-N. Y. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - LIEN PUBLIC IMPROVMENTS.-Where an ordinance MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ORDINANCE is passed ordering certain improvments to IN PART FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND IN be made, and if not made by individual PART FOR TAX.-A City ordinance imposing owners of property, the corporation will a tax, and also providing for a special make the improvements and assess the prop-assessment for street improvements, which erty therefor, the lien for such improvements is void in so far as it provides for taxation, is does not attach until the work of improvements is actually commenced, and land conveyed after the passage of the ordinance and before the work is commenced, passes free from the lien of the special assessment. -Norton v. South Easton.-Filed Oct. 6, 1885.-Pa. not therefore void as to the special assessments for which it provides.—Jacksonville Ry. Co. v. Jacksonville.—Filed Sept. 23, 1885. -Ill. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION-OBSTRUCTION IN STREET-CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.— MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION-AP- stons in the street, the owner, whose servant PEAL FROM ORDER DENYING THE MOTION. drives a horse recklessly over these stones in Where after judgment, a motion is made for the day time, cannot recover damages of the a stay of execution and denied, an appeal will city for injuries to the horse. The burden not lie from the order denying the motion of proof in such an action is on the plaintiff where the judgment in the case has not to show negligence on the part of the been appealed.-Carit v. Charles.-Filed city. -McCool v. Grand Rapids. - Filed Oct. 3, 1885.—Cal. Sept. 29, 1885.—Mich. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION-DEFENSE OF MORTGAGOR IN POSSESSION-NON PAYONE'S POSSESSION-WHEN AN ACTION WILL MENT OF TAXES-PURCHASE BY MORTGAGOR LIE-A person in lawful possession of pro- AT TAX SALE.-One who is the owner of perty may defend his possession against an real estate and has mortgaged the same, |