ASSIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS.

property, and completes the inventory and removes the property on the 31st, staying no longer than is necessary for that purpose; and never otherwise occupies the demised premises, he does not become liable for the rent falling due February 1st, or subsequently. Lewis vs. Burr,

3. Whether a voluntary assignee for the benefit of creditors stands in the same position as an assignee in bankruptcy, in respect to a lease owned by the assignor at the time of the assignment, discussed by BosWORTH, Ch. J. Id.

4. Assignee has only the rights of the assignor, not those of an assignee for value. Reed vs. Sands,

301

185

5. Priority between execution-creditor and assignee. Hall vs. Whiston, 558 6. Priority of creditors whose claims accrued before passage of homestead exemption acts. White vs. Rice,

558

7. Delivery of release by creditor to assignee is delivery to assignor. Allen vs. Gardiner,

8. A clause empowering the assignee to sell on credit makes the assignment void. Sutton vs. Cleveland,

9. Assignment is not made void by a provision for compensation to assignees. Campbell et al. vs. Woodworth et al.,

10. If assignment is valid when made, no subsequent acts of assignor or assignee will make it void. Juliand vs. Rathbone, 11. Sect. 2d of the New York Act of 1860 is directory merely. Id.

ASSUMPSIT.

1. For money had and received. Murphy vs. Ball,

2. Will lie for value of goods tortiously taken and sold. Harpending vs. Shoemaker,

3. Where owner of stock assigns more shares than he is entitled to, and the company makes good the deficiency, a promise by him to pay will support assumpsit. St. Nicholas Ins. Co. vs. Howe, .

ATTORNEY.

See COUNSEL.

1. Refusing to state his authority is estopped from denying that he acted on his own responsibility. Ford et al. vs. Williams,

2. Right to sue for services in America-discussed in Note to Kennedy vs. Broun and Wife,

BANKS AND BANKING.

1. An agent of a bank who, in general terms, is authorized by a bylaw or otherwise to certify checks drawn upon the bank, cannot certify his own checks when he has no funds to his credit, so as to make the bank liable. Claflin et al. vs. Farmers' and Citizens' Bank,

2. A holder who pays value for such a check cannot be said to take it in good faith. The fact that the name of the drawer is identical with that of the certifying agent is sufficient to put him upon inquiry. Id. 3. The custom of marking checks "good." Note to Claflin vs. Farmers' and Citizens' Bank,

4. Bank after such marking cannot allege want of funds of drawer. Id.,

251

764

631

. 248

563

249

5. Suit by holder of check against the bank for refusing to pay it. Id. 6. Restrictions on the transfer of stock. Leggett vs. Bank of Sing Sing, 249 7. Dividends-how payable-"state currency." Ehle vs. Chittenango Bank,

183

8. Certificate of deposit of "Illinois currency❞—how payable. Hulbert et al. vs. Carver et al.,

61

BANKRUPTCY.

1. How far assignee bound by decree in pending suit against the bankrupt, under Act of 1841. Cleveland vs. Boerum et al.,

BILLS AND NOTES.

See CONFLICT OF LAWS, 1.

WARRANTY, 2-4.

I. Liability of Parties.

1. Note not negotiable signed by two makers on its face and by a third person on the back-held that the latter was not an indorser, but a joint promissor. Richards vs. Warring,

701

2. Note signed by "L. L. F., Treasurer," is corporation note. Draper et al. vs. Mass. Steam Heating Co.,

698

3. Draft accepted by "E. T. L., Agent," held to bind him personally. Slawson vs. Loring,

698

4. Promise to accept is equivalent to acceptance as to every party taking the bill on the faith of the promise. Steman et al. vs. Harrison et al.,

5. Liability on agreement to indorse-reasonable notice. Schlessinger et al. vs. Dickinson,

6. An accommodation acceptor having paid a bill for which no funds are provided by the drawer, is entitled to recover the amount from him. De Barry vs. Withers,

7. The suit must be in the name of the payee to the use of the acceptor. Id.

8. But if the drawer make an express promise to the acceptor to pay the debt to him, he may sue in his own name.

II. Title to a Note.

448

508

762

Id.

the latter a valid title.

9. Indorsement of husband to wife and by her to third person gives Slawson vs. Loring,

698

10. Good faith in taking under suspicious circumstances. Belmont Branch Bank vs. Hoge,

11. Averment of title-sufficiency of. Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank vs. Wadsworth,

12. A letter written by the maker of a note to the holder, before the discount of it by him, is not admissible in an action by the latter against an indorser, to show that the indorsement was an accommodation one. Eckert vs. Cameron et al.,

13. Where an indorsed note comes into the possession of the maker before it is due, there is no presumption of payment or extinguishment; and, therefore, one who discounts the note under such circumstances is an innocent holder for value. Id.

III. Defence to a Note.

See LIMITATION, 3.

PATENT, 4.
SET-OFF, 1.

14. Holder of note representing it as for valid consideration is estopp from denying its validity or setting up the defence of usury. Parshall vs. Lamoureux,

Id.

15. But an accommodation guarantor not making such representations may set up the defence of usury as if he were merely an indorser. 16. Agreement between payee and maker to apply former's indebtedness in payment. Davis vs. Spencer, 17. Failure of consideration. Lester vs. Palmer,

IV. Demand and Notice.

18. Notice of dishonor discussed in reference to residence of parties. West River Bank vs. Taylor,

19. Presentment for payment-notice of non-payment. Hallowell & Co. vs. Curry et al.,

.

313

BILLS AND NOTES.

V. Grace.

20. Note payable in instalments with interest is entitled to grace on both principal and interest, and condition of mortgage given as collateral security is not broken till expiration of grace. Coffin vs. Loring,

BLACKWELL, HON. ROBERT S.

BONDS, OF PUBLIC OFFICERS.

699

. 501

1. Waiver of irregularities-Bonds not void by being not in the strict form prescribed by the statute. Morton vs. Campbell,

185

BREACH OF PROMISE.

Hotchkins vs. Hodge,

440

1. Promise need not be express.

2. Illegal consideration for promise. Id.

3. Evidence in action for.

Id.

4. Evidence in mitigation of damages. Johnson vs. Jenkins,

BRIDGE.

See NAVIGABLE RIVER.

ROADS, 1-4.

CASES AFFIRMED, OVERRULED, ETC.

Ableman vs. Booth, 21 How. 506, followed in Re Spangler, 598, and in Re Jordan, 749.

Cox vs. Taylor, 10 B. Monroe 17, disapproved in Gorton vs. Brown, 540. Gould vs. Banks, 8 Wend. 562, limited in Friess vs. Rider, 317. Hartung's Case, 22 N. Y. 95, commented on in Kuchler vs. People, 43. Hilliard vs. Richardson, 3 Gray 349, distinguished in Chicago vs. Rcbbins, 529.

Monongahela Nav. Co. vs. Coons, 6 Barr 382, affirmed in Clarke vs. Birmingham, &c., Bridge Co., 188.

Scammon vs. Chicago, 25 Ill. 424, partly overruled in Chicago vs. Robbins, 529.

Starin vs. Genoa, 23 N. Y. 439, affirmed in People ex rel. Fiedler vs. Mead et al., 249.

Sturms, Ex parte, 25 Ill. 390, overruled in part in Gibson vs. Roll, 118. Weston vs. Charleston, 2 Peters 449, commented on and followed in People vs. Commissioners of Taxes, 614.

CANALS.

1. Reversal of award of canal appraisers in New York. People vs. Gardner,

CERTIORARI.

1. Review of decision of Court below on questions of fact. Brown vs. Ramsay,

2. Only questions of law, not of fact, are open on certiorari. Nelson,

3. To justice-requisites to the return under New York Code. vs. Cahill et al.,

CITIZEN.

See COURTS, 3.

1. Whether a corporation is a citizen within the meaning of the Judiciary Act discussed. Note to Barney vs. Globe Bank,

CIVIL LAW, ON THE STUDY of,

COMMISSION.

1. Without seal of the Court, is a mere nullity. Ford et al. vs. Williams,

COMMON CARRIER.

I. Change of Route.

1. A carrier, finding, on his arrival at the end of his portion of the route, that an unusual press of business there would prevent his delivery of his freight for several days, is not thereby justified in taking the goods to another place and forwarding them from there to the consignees. Strong vs. Carrington et al.,

2. Demurrage at the first stopping-place not allowed. Id.

3. Though the charter-party is ordinarily the controlling evidence of the contract as to everything clearly expressed therein, and bills of lading are often regarded as little more than evidence of the shipping and receipt of the cargo, yet, where the charter-party is not proved, or where it makes no provision in regard to the consignee or mode of delivery, the bills of lading become the proper and controlling evidence, in whole or in part, of the contract. Id.

4. Freight is usually payable when it has been fully earned by the safe carriage and right delivery of the cargo. Id.

II. Liability for Non-delivery.

5. In special case, carrier may deny title in his bailor or shippermeasure of damages for non-delivery where goods are taken from him. Van Winkle vs. U. S. Mail Steamship Co.,

6. Undertaking to collect notes is not excused by delivery to an indorser who refused to give them up. Wareham Bank vs. Burt,

7. May be liable on contract to deliver goods at a certain place, though he can only deliver them at that point through another carrier. Burtis vs. Buffalo, &c., Railroad Co.,

III. Connecting Carriers.

8. Payment of charges due previous carriers-when lien exists, and the measure of it. Travis et al. vs. Thompson,

221

. 385

249

287

124

558

184

246

9. Rights and duties of intermediate consignee. Davis vs. Pattison, 184

COMMON LAW.

.

1. The legal system administered by the Ecclesiastical Courts in England, is a part of the common law of that country. Le Barron vs. Le Barron, 2. The power to grant divorces, for proper cause, has been an acknowledged head of jurisdiction in those Courts from the earliest period. Id. 3. The settlement of this country had the effect to make the general common law of England the law of this also, so far as applicable to the new condition of things. Id.

4. Jurisdiction of the subject of granting divorces never having been exercised by the ordinary law Courts in England, could not be exercised by the same Courts in this country, until jurisdiction was given them by the legislature, and, until then, the jurisdiction was in abeyance, or rested in the legislature. Id.

5. But when jurisdiction of the subject is bestowed upon any tribunal, it is to be exercised according to the principles and practice of the Eng

212

COMMON LAW.

lish Courts having the jurisdiction there, so far as applicable to the altered condition of things here, and not repugnant to the spirit of our Constitution and laws; and it is not a mere statutory jurisdiction, where the power of the Court is limited wholly to what the statute in terms authorizes. Le Barron vs. Le Barron,

COMMON RECOVERY.

1. Presumption of conveyance or surrender to make a tenant by the precipe. Richman vs. Lippincott,

CONFLICT OF LAWS.

See DECEDENTS' ESTATES, 2-3.
HUSBAND AND WIFE, 11.

JOINT DEBTOrs, 2.

I. Place of Contract.

1. A note dated in Massachusetts, and delivered there, though signed in another State, is to be taken as a contract made in Massachusetts. Lawrence vs. Bassett,

2. Assignment in Rhode Island held to convey title to personalty in Massachusetts, under the circumstances, though the assignment would be void in Massachusetts. Hunt vs. Lathrop,

II. Status of Indians in United States.

3. Since the removal of the Miami Tribe of Indians from Indiana, in pursuance of their treaty with the United States in 1840, a marriage between two remaining members of the tribe, according to the native customs, will be held invalid in the courts of Indiana, as contrary to the laws of that State. Roche v. Washington,

212

54

557

. 381

4. Qu. Whether the Indian tribes within the United States are in any case independent civilized nations, so as to require their marriage laws or customs to be recognised in the State Courts. Id.

CONFUSION OF GOODS.

1. Forfeiture of goods by fraudulent mixture with those of other persons. Stevenson vs. Little,

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

See COURTS, 7, 8, 12.

DRAFT, 2-4.

I. Powers of the Executiv

1. The President is vested with the whole executive power of the United States, and whether in suppressing an insurrection he has met such armed resistance, and a civil war of such proportions as compels him to accord them the character of belligerents, is a question to be decided by him, and the Courts must be governed by his decision. Schooner Brilliant et al. vs. United States,

2. The Fresident therefore had a right jure belli to institute a blockade of ports in possession of the States in rebellion, which neutrals are bound to regard. Id.

3. Under the Constitution of this government, although the citizens owe supreme allegiance to the Federal Government they owe also a qualified allegiance to the State in which they are domiciled; their persons and property are subject to its laws. Id.

4. Hence in organizing this rebellion they have acted as States claiming to be sovereign over all persons and property within their respective limits, and asserting a right to absolve their citizens from their allegiance to the Federal Government. The ports and territory of these States are held in hostility to the General Government, and all persons residing in

170

. 127

334