extend the time of payment beyond that fixed by the contract, a surety
for the principal debtor is discharged. Coleman v. Wade,
1. A general receipt for a quantity of wheat, subject to order, when called
for, without charge for storage, imports a naked bailment, and the pro-
perty does not pass. Wadsworth v. Allcott,
*64
1. Entries in the books of a bank, and in the pass-book of a customer, who
was the maker of a note held by it, whilst the bank was the holder of
the note, are competent evidence to prove payment thereof, in a suit by
a subsequent transferree of the note. Jermain v. Denniston,
1. In a suit by an assignee in bankruptcy, the defendant cannot set off a
claim against the bankrupt, purchased after the commencement of the
proceedings in bankruptcy. Smith v. Brinkerhoff,
*305
2. Under the bankrupt act of 1841, the filing of a petition in bankruptcy,
by one of several copartners, in behalf of himself, and of the firm, will
prevent the purchase of a firm obligation by a firm debtor, to be used as
a set-off, against the assignee.
BARGAIN AND SALE.
See STATUTE OF USES.
BENEFIT OF CREDITORS.
See ASSIGNMENT, 4.
1. A paper signed only by the consigner of goods, who is not the owner,
and intrusted to the master of the vessel, is no bill of lading, within
the meaning of the factor's act.
1. A person who has promised to pay what was needed for the support
BURDEN OF PROOF-(Continued.)
of a minor, beyond his earnings, is not liable, without proof of the
necessity of the expenditure. Merritt v. Seaman,
1. Equity will annul a voluntary conveyance, obtained by persons stand-
ing in such relation to the grantor, as to give them a controlling or very
strong influence over his conduct, upon slight evidence of its improper
exercise. Sears v. Shafer,
CASES AFFIRMED, REVERSED AND OVERRULED.
Brisbane v. Pratt, 4 Den. 63, overruled. James v. Chalmers,
Bulkeley v. Keteltas, 4 Sandf. 450, reversed,
Burdick v. Post, 12 Barb. 168, affirmed,
Chautauque County Bank v. White, 6 Barb. 589, reversed,
Clowes v. Van Antwerp, 4 Barb. 416, affirmed,
Corning v. Corning, 1 Code Rep. (N. S.) 351, affirmed,
Corwin v. Corwin, 9 Barb. 219, reversed,
Corwin v. Freeland, 6 How. Pr. 241, reversed,
Gould v. Hudson River Railroad Co., 12 Barb. 616, affirmed,
New York and Harlem Railroad Co. v. Story, 6 Barb. 419, reversed,
Parmelee v. Oswego and Syracuse Railroad Co., 7 Barb. 599, affirmed, *74
1. On a certiorari to remove proceedings in insolvency, under the revised
statutes (2 R. S. 49, 47), the court is not limited to an inquiry into the
jurisdiction of the officer, and the regularity of the proceedings; it may
proceed to examine and correct any erroneous decision upon a question
of law. Morewood v. Hollister,
CHARACTER.
See MITIGATION OF DAMAGES, 2.
WITNESS.
1. Where a note is given, payable in specific articles, by a day named,
to be selected by the payee, his omission to select, within the time, does
not discharge the maker from liability on the contract; the former may
select and demand payment, according to the tenor of the note, at a
future day. Gilbert v. Danforth,
*585
1. The holder of a check has no equitable lien upon the funds of the
drawer; checks are payable, when presented (if the drawer has funds in
the bank), without regard to priority in the time of drawing. Chapman
v. White,
*412
COLLECTING AGENT.
See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
1. Taking the acknowledgment of a deed is not a judicial act; the com-
missioner is not disqualified, though related to one of the parties. Lynch
v. Livingston,
1. In an action by indorsee against indorser, the plaintiff can recover under
the money counts, though the defendant was an accommodation in-dorser.
The nature of the consideration has no effect upon the remedy. Cayuga
County Bank v. Warden,
COMPTROLLER.
See NEW YORK CITY.
CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT.
See JUDGMENT.
SURROGATE, 1.
1. Where lands are set apart to a person for the erection of salt-works,
the interest of the grantee is subject to the condition precedent, that such
works shall be erected within four years; and so far as they are not
covered with erections, his interest ceases, at the expiration of that time.
Parmelee v. Oswego and Syracuse Railroad Co.,
*74
2. The interest of a grantee, upon condition subsequent, ceases on a breach
of the condition, without entry by the state.
Id.
3. The parties to a contract may, by their acts, waive the performance of
a condition precedent: acts held to amount to such waiver, where, on the
assignment of an interest in letters-patent, it was agreed, that if, after a
trial for a specified time, the patented article proved useless, the as-
signee might rescind. Young v. Hunter,
*203
4. The discharge of a judgment, upon an unperformed condition, the pos-
session of which is obtained by the debtor, but not filed with the clerk,
will not let in a subsequent mortgage, which was not contracted on the
faith of it. Crosby v. Wood,
*369
1. A conditional sale and delivery on credit, the goods being shipped to a
consignee, in the name of the vendor, the proceeds to be paid, in the
first place, to the latter, to the extent of the unpaid purchase-money,
and the overplus to the vendee, does not pass the title, nor enable the
purchaser to create a valid lien thereon for advances.
Hill
1. A promise, in consideration of the surrender of an instrument, wrong-
fully withheld, is not binding on the promissor. Crosby v. Wood, *369
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
1. The legislature has no power, by a special act, to authorize the sale of
the property of parties sui juris, for other than public purposes, without
their consent; and the facts which would create a necessity for the
exercise of such power, will not be presumed, when neither shown
by proof, nor recited in the act. Powers v. Bergen,
*358
2. A lease of agricultural lands to a son-in-law, with an agreement to de-
vise the lands to his wife, in consideration of the lessor being comfort-
ably supported, during life, is valid, under the constitution. Stephens
v. Reynolds,
CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE.
1. A statute will not be construed to have a retroactive effect, unless
such be clearly the intent of the legislature. People v. Carnal, *463
CONTRACT.
See CHATTEL NOTE.
1. One of several co-sureties, who pays the debt, may call upon the others
for contribution, though the sureties became such at different times, and
the one who paid the debt did not know, when he became surety, that
the defendant was to execute the instrument as a co-surety. Norton v.
Coons
*33
1. A certificate of conviction, made by a court of special sessions, pur-
suant to the statute, and duly filed, is conclusive evidence of the facts
therein stated; though it do not show that the court had obtained juris-
diction of the person of the prisoner. People v. Powers,
*50
CORPORATION.
See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
1. One of several co-sureties, who pays the debt, may call upon the others
for contribution, though the sureties became such at different times, and
the one who paid the debt did not know, when he became surety, that
the defendant was to execute the instrument as a co-surety. Norton v.
Coons,
*33
2. The liability of co-sureties to each other being fixed by the law, can-
not be varied, by parol evidence of a conversation between the principal
debtor, and the surety who last signed, in which the former expressed
the opinion, that the latter would not be responsible, so long as the
other surety was solvent.
Id.
COUNTER-CLAIM.
See SET-OFF.
1. Certifying to the signature and authority of a commissioner of deeds,
|