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
|