« AnteriorContinuar »
of the purpose for which it was received, indebted to the bank, but only the banker
to another for the express purpose of col-
lection, a custom of the latter contrary
thereto is not admissible.-Id.
4. Defendant collected certain drafts sent to
it by plaintiff for collection but applied the
proceeds, by direction of another party, to
its hands belonging to plaintiff. Held,
Tbat plaintiff was entitled to recover for
such proceeds, even though the violation
of duty by defendant was not caused by
fraud or collusion.—The Bank of Attica v.
of the court, to state fairly and candidly
bank for collection and credit to its account;
the R. bank sent it to the bank where it
R. bank, which was done in due course of
business; and the R. bank having, without
defendant's knowledge. failed, Heid, That
proceeds of the draft.-The Charlotte Iron
Works v. The American Ex. Natl Bk., 187.
6. The short statute of limitations of three
years contained in $ 394 of the Code ap-
plies to all actions against directors of a
were millers, and received the following limited to actions for liabilities created by
statute.- Brinkerhoff et al. v. Bostwick et al.,
8. In 1865 Margaret Ganley deposited two
treasury notes with defendant for safe keep-
ing and took from its cashier a paper stating
that they were to be delivered to her on sur-
render of the receipt. In 1866 her husband,
without her knowledge or subsequent rati-
fication, induced defendant, without pro-
over the proceeds to him. She died in 1869
and no administrator was appointed until
plaintiff was in 1879. The husband died
in 1874. Plaintiff produced the receipt
and demanded of defendant the notes,
which were refused. He then began this
action. Held, That the action could be
maintained.-Ganley v. The Troy City Nat l
9. The court will take judicial notice of the
fact that treasury notes were first issued
they did not fit as it was agreed that they trict attorney and stating that J.was in dan-
was immaterial that J. had been previously
discharged on an examination before a
pearance when the action is called for trial did not matter that 110 person in fact
defendant made similar statements and re-
quested money to stop proceedings, is ad-
missible as bearing on the intent with which
the letter was written.-Id.
an amendment in a bond given on appeal 3. To make out the crime specified in $ 558,
the letter was sent, or that the writer was
the one threatening to do the wrongful act.
See BASTARDY ; DISCOVERY, 4 ; FICTITIOUS
NAMES, 3 ; SURETYSHIP, 3 ; UNDERTAKING.
broker that stocks and shares should be
bought by the latter for the former and
held by him subject to orders which after-
wards might be given for their sale, and,
after they had been sold in that manner,
that the differences which might result
from the changes in the market prices of
the property should be settled, is a proper
and lawful one, and is not illegal as being
a gaming contract.-Cunningham y. Stedena
his son.in-law's property and promised in 2. When stocks held by a broker for his
the former without authority, it is not
in order to maintain an action for conver-
3. To maintain the claim of a broker for his
commissions it is only necessary for him to
show that lie had procured a responsible
purchaser for the property at the price for
which he was empowered to sell, or that
the principal had deprived him of the
one J., representing himself as a deputy dis lasted.-Duclos v, Cunningham, 102.
4. In an action by a broker to recover com ing his duties does not make his action or
missions on a sale of real estate where the powers judicial.-Id.
3. A conclusion of fact without competent
be assailed by the relator on return to a
writ of certiorari and reviewed by the
court. - The People ex rel. Brisbane et al. v.
goods are consigned for sale from time to
4 Defendants reported favorably on a claim
of A. against the county. The report was
adopted. They afterwards signed the tax
books and warrants for collection of taxes,
and adjourned sine die. Thereafter the
money to pay said claim was raised and
received by thein in a fiduciary capacity it was too late for a taxpayer to intervene
See ABANDONMENT, 1, 2; ASSESSMENTS,
1. The purchaser at execution sale of property
subject to a mortgage, the amount of which
was announced as a condition of the sale,
cannot dispute either the validity of the
mortgage or its amount. — The Lake Keuka
Nao. Co. v. Holmes, 32.
not justify defendant as mortgagee of a
chattel in deeming himself unsafe, and in
taking possession of the chattel before
default, was held unsupported by the
evidence ; that defendant had, under the
circumstances, reasonable grounds for be-
lieving himself insecure.-Allen v. Vose, 74.
3. Such a clause in a mortgage vests in the
mortgagee an absolute discretion to take
possession of the property when he may
deem himself insecure; and the exercise of
that he has reasonable grounds for believing
4. G. and W., who owned certain premises
in which were planing and other machinery
for making barrels, executed a mortgage to
one M., who foreclosed the same, bid in the
premises and went into possession, the ma-
chinery remaining on the premises, and
subsequently gave a chattel mortgage on
and W. gave a chattel mortgage on a por-
tion of said machinery to defendant, who
foreclosed and bid in the property. In an
action for conversion, Held, Thai plaintiff
could not recover, as his mortgagor had
ferior tribunals or officers exercising judicial iitle thereto.-Kelsey v. Lyon, 169.
5. A chattel mortgage on a stock of goods
which provides that the mortgagor may re-
and void. --Ball v. Slafter, 490.
See ATTORNEYS, 10; NEGOTIABLE PAPER, 10.
mont, drove over into the State of New
State. — Goodwin v. Young, 299.
for a father's death, it appeared that a guard.
proper.—Ludicig v. Glaessel, 302.
owned the premises where the liquor was
on cross-examination, asked
See Costs, 6.
CIVIL DAMAGE ACT.
it appeared that defendant's husband was
her husband, by consenting to the use by
Act against the owner of the premises the
nected. — Rawlins v. Vidvard, 158.
Damage Act, against defendant's testator,
- Moriarty v. Bartlett, 277.
CLOUD ON TITLE.
an apparent lien on the land presumptively
The City of Buffalo, 48.
time the roll was delivered to the treasurer
cloud upon the title, which is made pre
able relief only, the complaint cannot, upon
5. But if the action could be upheld as in
ejectment, the allegations of the complaint
CODE CIVIL PROCEDURE.
See AFFIDAVIT, 1, 3; APPEAL, 11, 14; AT-
TACHMENT, 3; ATTORNEYS, 11 ; BANKS, 6 ;
it shall be conclusive as to the quantity of
Ford v. Head et al., 364.
carry barrels of beans on deck, but told the
CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 1, 4.
yond the line of the contracting company
Y., L. E. & W. RR. Co., 27.
ages for delay in the transportation and de-
mer v. The L. S. & M. S. RR. Co., 51.
for articles which were never delivered to
1. The fact that a judgment entered in an ac-
tion for a separation directing the payment
-Ryckman v. Ryckman, 129.
ure, authorizing the punishment of the de-
enactment of said section of the Code.-Id.
ant in an action for separation as for a con-
See APPEAL, 9.
1. By a contract entered into by plaintiff and
one B. the latter agreed to conduct for