Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the delivery of the cargo, “less advances made to master at port of loading.” The charter had these words : “Cash, for ship’s ordinary disbursements, to be advanced the master by charterer's agents at port of loading, free of interest or commission, but subject to insurance."

The bark arrived at Akyab, and during the spring and summer of 1857 the charterer's agents advanced to the master for his ordinary dựsbursements the money in question in this action. The bark sailed on her homeward voyage in August or September, 1857, and put into Calcutta, where the master, without authority from the plaintiffs, and without any necessity therefor, sold the whole of the then cargo of rice, and broke up the voyage. Plaintiffs' agents at Calcutta filed a bill against the master, and obtained the proceeds of the rice sold.

Held, plaintiffs were entitled to recover the advances; that the acceptance of the proceeds of the sale did not affect this right.

R. C. Benedict for the appellant.

Aug. F. Smith for the respondent.
FOLGER, J., reads opinion for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.

JACOB STINER et al., Appellants, v. JOSEPH STINER et al.,

Respondents.

(Argued May 31, 1872; decided June 4, 1872.)

John Graham for the appellants.

Ira Shafer for the respondent.
AGREE to affirm; no opinion.
Reported below, 58 Barb., 643.

Mary MONEYPENNY, Respondent, v. EUGENE JACKSON,

Appellant.

(Argued May 31, 1872; decided June 4, 1872.)

John II. Reynolds for the appellant.
H. Brewster for the respondent.

AGREE to affirm; no opinion.

IN THE MATTER OF John G. LAMBERSON, Appellant.

(Argued May 28, 1872; decided June 4, 1872.)

Samuel Hand for the appellant.

Stephen A. Walker for the respondent.

AGREE to affirm ; no opinion.

JAMES L. VAN INGEN, Respondent, v. DANIEL H. Way,

Appellant.

(Argued February 19, 1872 ; decided June 11, 1872.)

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

HENRY A. CHALVIN D'ARENN, Respondent, v. HENRY J.

Yates et al., Appellants.

(Argued June 4, 1872; decided June 11, 1872.)

DECIDED upon the facts in the case.

Amasa J. Parker for the appellants.

Samuel J. Glassey for the respondent.
ALLEN, J., reads opinion for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.

WILLIAM B. Shaw, Appellant, v. HOME LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY, Respondent.

(Argued June 4, 1872; decided June 11, 1872.)

PLAINTIFF engaged with defendant as soliciting agent, under a contract by which he was to receive during the time he acted as such agent five per cent commission upon the amount of annual premiums due and payable in each year after the first year of their continuance, upon all policies solicited and secured by him, and in case of his death while so acting as agent, defendant agreed to pay to his wife, if she survived him, the commissions accruing thereafter to which he would have been entitled if he had lived and continued to act. The contract contained a provision that either party might cancel it after giving three months notice of such intent, and if defendant should cancel it, it should continue to pay plaintiff or his wife the commissions as aforesaid, provided he should perform the necessary service in procuring payment of the premium. After two years the agreement was rescinded by mutual consent and the agency terminated.

Plaintiff claimed to recover his commissions upon premiums thereafter received upon policies solicited and secured by him. Held, that by the terms of the contract a commission upon the premiums accruing upon the policies secured by plaintiff during each year of the continuance of the agency was a full compensation for the year's service, save where defendant canceled the contract as provided, and plaintiff having voluntarily surrendered the right to perfom future services and to receive the compensation

SICKELS—VOL. IV. 86

therefor, had no right to greater compensation for past services and could not recover.

Joseph R. Flanders for the appellant.
A. B. Capwell for the respondent.
GROVER, J., reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed with costs.

INDEX.

ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL.

ACQUIESCENCE.

Under section 121 of the Code an
action does not abate, although

See VENDOR AND VENDEE, 11.
the sole plaintiff or defendant die,
and there be no verdict of judg-
ment, provided the cause of ac-

ACTION.
tion survive in favor of or against
the representatives of the deceased
party. This section, however, was

See DAMAGES, 1.
not intended to change the former
practice, which confined the right
of continuing the action to the
complainant or his representatives, ADMISSIONS AND DECLARA-
unless the defendant had acqnired

TIONS.
some rights in the litigation; where
a counter-claim has been inter See EVIDENCE, 6, 18, 19.
posed and issue joined thereon and MASTER AND SERVANT, 5.
referred to a referee for trial, the
defendant has acquired such an
interest in prosecuting the action
as entitles him or his representa-

AFFIRMANCE.
tives to have it continued, and this
relief can be obtained upon mo-

See FRAUD, 1.
tion in the action. Livermore v.
Bainbridge.

125

ALTERATION.

ABORTION.

See MANSLAUGHTER, 2.

See BILLS, NOTES, CHECKB, 6.

ACCEPTANCE.

AMENDMENTS.

See PLEADINGS, 1, 2.

See RAILROAD CORPORATIONS, 8.

VENDOR AND VENDEE, 10, 11,

16.
CONOR 0. DEMPSEY (mem.), 665.

ANSWER

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.

See PLEADINGS, 7, 8.

See ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION, 7.

ACCOUNT STATED.

APPARENT OWNER.

Seo Mass. MUT. LITE INs. Co. 0.

CARPENTER (Mem.), 668.

See PLEDGE, 2.

TITLE, 4.

« AnteriorContinuar »