7. Opening of decree for alimony for matters occurring at or before the decree. Perkins vs. Perkins, 764.
8. The birth of living children, after the conveyance by a married woman of land held by her to her separate se, will entitle her husband to curtesy therein. Comer vs. Chamberlain, 317.
9. Where H. received a deed and at the same time reconveyed the land in mortgage to his grantor, the wife of H. was not entitled to dower as against such mortgage. Hinds vs. Ballou, 126.
10. Widow dowable of lands to which husband had an inchoate title, and to extent of dower she is representative of the claimants. Thomas vs. Hesse, 632. 11. If husband sell without wife's relinquishment of dower, she is dowable according to the law in force at the time of sale. Id.
12. If alienees hold such land in several parcels, dower will be assigned in each separately. Id.
III. Separate Estate of Wife. See UsURY, 6.
13. A married woman can charge the whole or a portion of her separate estate as a surety for her husband, the intention to charge such separate estate being declared in the contract. Barnett vs. Lichtenstein, 61.
14. Wife cannot charge her separate estate by parol promise to pay a debt of the husband, where her estate is to receive no benefit. Ledlie vs. Vrooman, 504.
15. Application of separate estate to maintenance of insane wife. Daven- port vs. Davenport, 63.
16. Married woman is liable on a note given by her to pay for land for her separate estate. Chapman vs. Foster, 317.
17. Policy of insurance to wife cannot be transferred so as to divest her interest. Eadie vs. Slimmon, 568.
18. Acknowledgment it seems is not necessary in New York to conveyance of wife's separate estate. Wiles vs. Peck, 568.
19. Trust funds of wife lent to husband on his note and by agreement no interest collected, the statute of limitations does not apply. Upham vs. Wyman, 699.
20. Settlement by husband on wife-when it will be valid-presumptions and evidence in relation to. Townsend vs. Maynard, 572.
21. Husband's declarations not admissible to prove property in wife. Parvin vs. Capewell, 575.
22. Possession of money by wife no evidence of her separate right to it. ld.
23. Mere gift to wife by husband not a settlement to her separate use. Id. 24. Rent of real estate bought by married woman cannot be attached by creditor of the husband. Goff vs. Nuttall et al., 309.
25. In trespass for taking property of a firm of which the wife was a mem- ber for husband's debt, she must show that her interest was her separate estate.
Duress vs. Homeffer, 509.
IV. Powers and Liabilities of Married Women. See UsURY, 6.
26. Where goods are sold to a married woman upon her individual credit, although the vendors are ignorant of the fact of coverture, there is no lia- bility ex contractu on the part of the husband to pay for them. Goulding vs. Davidson, 34.
27. But if the credit to the wife was obtained by fraudulent representations on her part that she was unmarried, the vendor may have an action against the husband and wife jointly, either to recover the goods, or damages for their conversion; or semble, an action on the case for damages for the fraud. Id.
28. For tort of the wife committed in the presence or by order of the hus- band, the latter alone is liable, and after his death no action survives against the wife for such tort. Id.
29. But if the tort was not in the husband's presence or by his order, it is the wrong of the wife although the husband is jointly liable with her, and in such case an action will survive against the wife alone after the death of the husband. Goulding vs. Davidson, 34.
30. Therefore, where goods had been sold to a married woman on her repre- sentations that she was sole, and she had given notes in payment, her promise made after the death of her husband to pay the notes was founded on a good and sufficient consideration. Id.
31. Whether married woman is liable civilly when she fraudulently repre- sents herself as sole. Note to Goulding vs. Davidson, 42.
32. Whether in such case she is bound by subsequent promise, after hus- band's death. Id.
33. Purchase-money is a lien on the land sold, where the purchaser has given no separate security, and this applies to purchases by married women. Chilton vs. Braiden's Adm., 53.
34. A married woman may belong to a trading partnership, if her husband is not a member thereof. Plumer vs. Lord, 63.
35. Coercion of wife by threat of prosecuting husband. Eadie vs. Slimmon, 568.
V. Actions by Husband and Wife.
36. Under a statute providing that the separate property of a married wo- man shall remain under her sole control, &c., a married woman, as to her sepa- rate property, is in the condition of a feme sole, and may bring an action at law in her own name, without joining her husband. Emerson vs. Clayton, 530. 37. Actions under statutes providing for wife's separate estate. Note to Emerson vs. Clayton, 533.
38. Married woman may, in New York, maintain an action in her own name, and counter claims against the husband will not be allowed. Paine vs. Hunt, 252.
39. In a suit by husband and wife, for the loss of merchandise of the wife before marriage, she is not a competent witness for the plaintiffs. Smith and Wife vs. Boston and Maine Railroad, 127.
INCOME TAX. See BANKS, 8.
A testator directed an annuity to be paid out of his personal estate "with- out any deduction whatever:" Held, that the income tax was payable by the annuitant. Abadam vs. Abadam, 690.
Party hiring room for a ball are not "guests," so as to make innkeeper liable for loss of their property. Hobbs vs. Carter, 183.
INSANITY. See DEED, 7; HUSBAND AND WIFE, 15; MENTAL UNSOUNDNESS; SENILE DEMENTIA.
INSOLVENCY. See CORPORATION, 8; PARTNERSHIP, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9; VENDOR, 2. 1. A discharge under the insolvent laws of one state will not discharge a debt to a citizen of another state, unless the latter has voluntarily become a party to the proceedings, and thus given the court jurisdiction. Baldwin vs. Hale, 462.
2. Nature and effect of a discharge under a state insolvent law. Note to Baldwin vs. Hale, 469.
3. Attachment by creditor of an insolvent's property in another state. De- hon vs. Foster, 506.
4. New promise to pay made before discharge is valid. Lerow vs. Wil- marth, 698.
5. Plea of discharge. Haggerty vs. Amory, 698.
INSURANCE See AMENDMENT, 3; BILLS, 3; HUSBAND AND Wife, 17. 1. Insurable Interest.
1. Where a creditor of F. had insured his life for a sum not exceeding his debt, and before F.'s death, action upon the debt was barred by the Statute of Limitations, the insured was entitled to recover from the company. Rawls vs. American Ins. Co., 167.
2. In such a case the debt still exists, and is not extinguished, as in the case of payment. Id.
3. In life insurance it is enough that the party effecting the policy has an insurable interest at its inception. Id.
4. The rules of the defendant required the applicant for insurance to fur- nish a reference to some third person, from whom information might be ob- tained respecting the health and habits of the person whose life was to be insured: Held, that the statement of the third person was not a warranty. Id.
5. Where a series of questions is put to the insured, and fully answered, an omission to state matter not called for by any general or specific question, is not a concealment.
6. The following propositions, among others, in the law of evidence, de- cided:
a. Statements by the debtor made after the insurance is effected are not admissible in evidence against the insured.
b. Experts cannot be examined as to the point whether a person who is in the habitual use of intoxicating drinks can be regarded as an insurable sub- ject.
c. When the defendant puts in issue in the pleadings, the good faith of the author of a written statement upon which the policy is issued, it is proper for the plaintiff to ask such person if his answers to questions contained in the statement were made in good faith. Id.
7. The rule of the common law as to the right to insure, where the insured has no interest, discussed. Note to Rawls vs. Insurance Co., 178.
8. Whether life insurance is a contract of indemnity, discussed. Id.
9. If one partner insures in his own name only, and there is no evidence to show that the insurance was for the partnership, or that the premium was paid from the partnership funds, the policy will be held to cover his undivided interest only. Insurance Co. vs. Hall, 417.
10. One partner cannot, in his own name, and for his own benefit, insure the interest of his copartner, even though such may have been the intention of both the insurer and insured. Id.
11. By consignee or commission merchant in his own name. Note to Insurance Co. vs. Loney, 662.
12. Parol evidence to affect the language of a policy. Id.
II. Construction of Policy.
13. A building was insured for $3000 by A., and $2000 by B., in separate policies, each of which contained a clause allowing the insurer the option of rebuilding, and the building having been destroyed by fire, A. and B. served a joint notice that they were prepared to rebuild. The building having been reconstructed, the insured insisted that the contract had not been substantially complied with, and brought an action on the policy against A., claiming to recover the full amount of his original loss: Held, that he could not recover. Morrell vs. Ins. Co., 404.
14. After the election and notice, a contract to rebuild existed between the parties, and if this is not fulfilled by the insurer, he is liable for the damages sustained by the non-fulfilment of the contract, which may be more or less than the amount insured. The action, consequently, should have been brought to recover damages for breach of contract. Id.
15 It seems that the action might have been brought against both insurers jointly or either separately. Id.
16. Effect of an election by company to rebuild under the clause in the policy giving them that right. Note to Morrell vs. Ins. Co., 414.
17. A policy of insurance containing a clause that goods held on commis- sion must be insured as such, is to be interpreted by its own terms, and parol evidence is not admissible to show that the insurers knew the kind of busi- ness of the insured, and the character of his interest in the goods. Ins. Co. vs. Loney, 651.
18. There was an insurance by appellant upon goods of class A. (the appellees' own goods merely), and insurance by another company on goods of classes A. and B. indiscriminately (class B. being goods held on commis- sion). The appellant's policy contained a covenant that no greater propor- tion of a loss should be recovered under it than the amount thereby insured should bear to the whole amount of all the insurances on the premises. The loss on goods of class B. alone, was greater than the second company's entire insurance, and it accordingly paid the full amount without reference to the classes of goods: Held, that the second insurance was not within the effect of the covenant for proportion, and that the appellant was not entitled to any abatement of its liability by reason thereof. Id.
19. The policy contained a clause that the loss should be paid within sixty days after it should be ascertained and proved. The loss was duly proved within the sixty days, and was acknowledged by the company, who offered payment of what it assumed as the amount of its liability (but in fact a smaller sum than it was bound for), and then refused to pay any larger sum: Held, that thereby the condition as to the sixty days was waived, and interest was due from that date on the sum for which the company was really bound. Id. 20. A policy of insurance contained a clause that no action should be brought upon it unless within twelve months after the loss had occurred. Such a limitation must rest upon the tacit condition that the insurer should be accessible to the service of process. Ins. Co. vs. Hall, 417.
21. A condition that if gunpowder was kept without written permission in the policy, the policy should be void, is not broken if the agent at the time of taking the insurance knew that gunpowder was kept. Id.
22. Notice to the agent was notice to the insurer; and by issuing the policy the latter waived the condition. Id.
23. Liquors, the sale of which is prohibited under a penalty, may still be insured. Niagara Ins. Co. vs. De Graff, 489.
24. Goods were insured as "groceries." The stock included spirituous liquors kept for sale. A loss occurred, and an action being brought on the policy, the insurer asked the court to charge that, since the Prohibitory Liquor Law, the term " groceries" would not include liquors. The question whether the liquors were insured under this term was properly left to the jury. Id.
25. A policy of insurance on "groceries" had a condition that if the pre- mises were used for storing liquors, "except as herein specially provided for, or hereafter agreed to by this corporation, in writing upon this policy," the policy should thereby be rendered of no effect. Liquors were kept, and it was held that if the jury found that the term "groceries," as used, included these articles, then they were "specially provided for in writing on the policy." Id.
26. An agreement to insure for the benefit of a vendor and to assign policy for his security, with subsequent insurance and no assignment, operates as equitable assignment of money payable upon the policy in case of loss, but not of policy, and therefore not within clause declaring the interest of insured is not assignable without written consent. Cromwell vs. Brooklyn Fire Ins. Co., 123.
27. Interest in a policy on realty descends to heirs. Wyman vs. Wyman,
28. If policy runs to assured, his executors, &c., the latter may maintain an action as trustee for the heirs. Id.
29. Damages in such case are realty. Id.
30. Acknowledgment in policy not conclusive of receipt of premium. Sheldon vs. Atlantic Ins. Co., 635.
31. Cases of marine insurance discriminated. Sheldon vs. Ins. Co., 635. 32. A general agent may waive condition that no insurance shall be bind- ing till payment of premium. Id.
34. Clause "partial loss on tin plates excepted." Kettell vs. Alliance Ins. Co., 186.
35. Insurance on goods contained in a store, wall of the building fell, and before the goods could be removed fire broke out. Insurers liable for goods not injured by the fall. Lewis vs. Springfield Ins. Co., 186.
36. Allowance for advanced premiums. Chesbrough vs. Wright, 444.
37. A warranty by the assured that the vessel shall be free from capture, seizure, or detention, includes a capture by a cruiser of the so-called Con- federate States: Dole vs. New England Ins. Co., 315.
38. In such case the liability of the insurers is terminated by such capture, so that they are not liable for the burning of the vessel immediately there- after. Id.
39. Conveyance and reconveyance of vessel by way of mortgage is not within the terms of a policy against assignment of insured's interest. Hitch- cock vs. N. W. Ins. Co., 500.
40. Notice of abandonment to support claim for constructive total loss must state the damage to exceed half the value. Mc Conochie vs. Sun Ins. Co., 701. 41. Implied warranty of seaworthiness in time policy. Iloxie vs. Pacific Ins. Co., 507.
IV. Life Insurance. See ante, 1-8.
42. A policy is conditioned to be void in certain events, "except to the extent of any interest acquired therein by assignment for valuable considera- tion." The insurer mortgages the policy, together with real estate; after- wards the policy is avoided under the condition. The society is compelled by the mortgagee to pay him the policy, and it then files a bill to take his place as against the other property. Held, that such a claim cannot be sus- tained. Solicitor's Life Assurance Society vs. Lamb, 686.
43. The premium on a life insurance policy due on Sunday, is not to be paid until Monday, even if assured dies on Sunday. Hammond vs. American Ins. Co., 186.
V. Mutual Insurance Company.
44. May divide its business into classes, but whether it may exempt pre- mium notes in one class from assessment for losses in another, quære. Sands vs. Boutwell, 636.
45. Receiver may charge in his assessment for expenses of making and collecting the same.
INTEREST. See BANK, 7, 10; NEGOTIABLE BONDS, 2, 5; PARTNERSHIP, 3; USURY.
1. A purchaser for cash is chargeable in case of non-payment, with interest from delivery. Foote vs. Blanchard, 250.
2. On a debt due by garnishee to his creditor as whose property it is at- tached, is suspended during the proceedings. Jackson's Er'rs. vs. Lloyd, 309. 3. Interest "till paid" means from date. Pittman vs. Barrett, 633.
Character of the office of commissioner. Note to McCreedy vs. Callahan,
INTERNATIONAL LAW. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 8, 9, 16.
JUDGMENT. See COURTS, 2, 5, 7, 10; MORTGAGE, 2; PARTITION.
1. Cannot be impeached in action upon it for want of authority of attorney. Finneran vs. Leonard, 506.
2. The order of court, denying a motion to cancel a judgment, entered upon
« PreviousContinue » |