« ForrigeFortsett »
must transfer the property to a trustee, or 2. Proof of a custom which is general is not ob-
tract to exclude its application. Parties are
presumed to contract in reference to a gen.
eral usage or custom which prevails in the
particular trade or business to which the
contract relates.--Fuller et al. v. Robinson,
one B., relying upon B.'s sworn statement
tiff, procured a loan from him, on mortgage,
nothing being said about the rate of interest.
A statement of the indebtedness, a receipted
attorney's bill and a check for the balance
were handed to intestate as covering the
loan. He objected to an item in the attor-
ney's bill of $150 for commissions in procur.
by a person in his or her name, as trustee for right; that he could not do any better,
by virtue of any agreement, and therefore,
there could be no usury.-Guggenheimer v.
Geiszler et al., 287.
3. Defendants applied to certain brokers for a
to plaintiffs for a sum due plaintiffs. These per cent. for procuring it. One B agreed to
tained all but a small commission which he
makes a contract for the loan or forbearance
of money lawful by the laws of that state, he
cannot render his obligation void by making
it payable in a state by whose laws it would
be usurious; although it be signed in a
different state than where it was made and
sent to the place of contract by mail, it must
be governed by the laws of the place o
contract. The Wayne Co. Savings Bk. v. Low-
5. An accommodation note made and endorsed :
for the sole purpose of being discounted, which
is discounted at its inception at a usurious
rate of interest, is void in the hands of a
bona fide holder for value, and cannot be
enforced against the accommodation en-
dorser.-Raynor v. Randall, 460.
of the note as accommodation paper.-Id.
7. If a contract is usurious it is absolutely void,
the vendor of a bill valid in the hands of the
indorser that it is drawn against funds or
that it is not accommodation paper.- The
People's Bk. v. Bogart et al., 307.
were discounted at a rate of from ten to 2. Defendants' intestate having an agreement
with A & B, by which they were to share
equally with him the profits of the busi.
ness carried on by him, made an agreement
with C & D, by which he sold them each a
quarter interest therein. In an action by C,
his contract of warranty of title the differ-
verse v. Miner et al., 424.
See EVIDENCE, 16; LIFE INSURANCE, 5.
1. The right of an owner of lands through
which a watercourse runs to have the same
kept open, and to discharge therein the sur-
face water, is not limited to the drainage and
discharge of surface water into the stream
in the same precise manner as when the land
was unimproved and uncultivated.- McCor-
mick et al. v. Horan, 231.
ditches, or otherwise, accelerate the flow or
so in the reasonable use of his premises, and
mutual benefit of its members, should not be stream in quantities beyond its natural ca-
he exercises only a legal right.-Id.
1. A municipal corporation owning improved
has provided and maintains at its own cost
for the benefit of those engaged in commerce
upon the public navigable waters of the
United States, is not prohibited by the
national constitution from charging and col-
lecting from those using the wharves and
facilities such reasonable fees as will fairly
remunerate it for the use of its property:-
The Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. The
City of St. Louis, 521.
2. No state can, consistently with the National
Constitution, impose upon the products of
other States, brought therein for sale or use,
or upon citizens because engaged in the
sale therein, or the transportation thereto,
of the products of other states, more
onerous public burdens or taxes than it im-
poses upon the like products of its own
territory.-Guy v. The Mayor of Baltimore,
public wharves of a city, laden with the pro-
ducts of other states, are required to pay A., the children of I., the son of another de-
4. Testator by his will bequeathed a sum of
*"* the Presbyterian cemetery."
There was a cemetery known by that name,
but no corporation in the town known to the
law by that name. Held, That the bequest
must fail for want of a beneficiary capable of
taking, and that it was not such a charitable
bequest as the court could execute. — The
First Presbyterian Soc. v. Bowen et al., 400.
al. v. Rugg et al., 401.
witnesses will not defeat a will if the attesta-
tion clause and other circumstances are satis.
the state until he makes and files the depo-
sition required by statute; this he may do at
any time before the state recovers the lands,
escheat which may have been instituted. -
Hall et al. v. Hall et al., 414.
files the requisite deposition, the estate vests
in such devisee.-Id.
See EVIDENCE, 3; Trusts, 1.