« ForrigeFortsett »
Cited and principle applied in Briggs v. United States, 143 U. S. 354, 36 L. 184, 12 S. Ct. 394, holding mortgage of unsown crop covers same when subsequently raised; Barnard v. Norwich, etc., R. R., 4 Cliff. 365, F. C. 1,007, holding after-acquired leasehold interests pass to mortgagee; Boston Safe Deposit v. Bankers, etc., Co., 36 Fed. 298, holding mortgage of acquired property takes effect aus valid lien upon acquirement by mortgagor; Milliken v. Barrow, 88 Fed. 895, upholding clause in mortgage of sugar crop covering prospective bounties; Abraham v. Carter, 53 Ala. 10, holding statutory lien for advances to make crops operates as mortgage of afteracquired property; Booker v. Jones, 53 Ala. 271, reprinted in 30 Am. Rep. 66, note, holding mortgage of future crop on land to be acquired by mortgagor, attaches in equity as crop matures; Westmoreland v. Foster, 60 Ala. 454, holding landlord's lien for rent on tenants' crops exists independent of statute; Patapsco Guano Co. v. Ballard, 107 Ala. 716, 54 Am. St. Rep. 135, 19 So. 779, holding mortgagor of unplanted crop becomes trustee for mortgagee when crop grows; Apperson v. Moore, 30 Ark. 60, 21 Am. Rep. 173, holding lien under mortgage of unplanted crop attaches on latter coming into existence; Grand Forks Bank v. Minneapolis, etc., Elevator Co., 6 Dak. 366, 43 N. W. 808, holding chattel mortgage on future crops valid, and reviewing authorities; Stephens v. Tucker, 55 Ga. 544, upholding mortgage on future crop; Headrick v. Bouttain, 63 Ind. 438, holding tenant's mortgage of future crop valid against his execution creditors; Fejavary v. Broesch, 52 Iowa, 90, 35 Am. Rep. 262, 2 N. W. 964, holding lease clause making rent a lien on crops, a valid mortgage; Edwards v. Peterson, 80 Me. 372, 6 am. St. Rep. 209, 14 Atl. 937, holding assignment of expected wages in future employment valid in equity; Dickey v. Waldo, 97 Mich. 263, 56 N. W. 611, 23 L. R. A. 479, upholding agreement to plant and care for trees to be furnished by other party for one-half crops grown thereon; Cayce v. Stovall, 50 Miss. 399, holding lien of mortgage on unsown crop attaches as it comes in esse; Everman v. Robb, 52 Miss. 662, 24 Am. Rep. 687, similar case, upholding lessee's mortgage of unsown crop to secure rent; Davis v. Marx, 55 Miss. 378, 379, holding mortgage covering live stock to be acquired during term, gives lien on stock acquired by trading; Cotten v. Willoughby, 83 N. C. 78, 35 Am. Rep. 563, holding crop sown but not yet growing, mortgagable at common law; Groton Mfg. Co. v. Gardiner, 11 R. I. 628, holding such mortgage a valid contract for a llen; Watkins V. Wyatt, 9 Baxt. 254, reprinted in 30 Am. Rep. 64, and Dupree v. McClanahan, 1 Tex. App. Civ. 317, both holding crop to be planted, subject of valid mortgage; De Vaughn v. Howell, 82 Ga. 344, 14 Am. St. Rep. 164, 9 S. E. 174, holding landlord may reserve in lease, title to future crop to secure rent; Hewett v. Willlams, 48 La. Ann. 693, 19 So. 606, application vague: dissenting opinion in Chaffe v. Heyner, 31 LA. Ann. 611, 620, majority opin. ion bas no application; Succession of Benjamin, 39 La. Ann. 616, 2 So. 190, majority holding mortgage not created; Cook v. Corthell, 11 R. I. 485, majority holding mortgage of property to be acquired ineffectual. See Ellet v. Butt, 1 Woods, 220, note, F. C. 4,384, 8. C. in District Court, 46 Am. Dec. 717, and 76 Am. Dec. 725, 731, 732, notes on mortgages of after-acquired property; 14 Am. St. Rep. 168, note on landlord's right to reserve lien on tenant's crops.
Cited but not applied in Brockenbrough v. Brockenbrough, 31 Gratt. 593, quære as to whether trust deed passed after-acquired property. Distinguished in Rees v. Coates, 65 Ala. 258, holding verbal mortgage of future crop does not pass legal title on which mortgage without having acquired possession, can maintain trover against third party; Bush v. Garner, 73 Ala. 167, holding mortgage on unplanted crop creates mere equitable lien insufficient to support trover; Noyes V. Jenkins, 55 Ga. 587, holding unplanted crop not a subject of sale; Long v. Hines, 40 Kan. 223, 10 Am. St. Rep. 195, 19 Pac. 797, holding chattel mortgage of unplanted crop void against attaching creditors. Departed from in Williams v. Briggs, 11 R. I. 478, reprinted in 22 Am. Rep. 654, note, holding mortgage of personal property to be acquired conveys no title upon acquisition unless inortgagee then takes possession, reviewing authorities.
Landlord and tenant.- Where leased property is sold on execution, against lessor, sheriff's deed conveys reversion and rent to purchaser, p. 547.
Cited in Webster v. Nichols, 104 Ill. 178, holding lease covenant making rent first lien on future improvements runs with the land; Chandler v. Pittsburgh Glass Co., 20 Ind. App. 166, 50 N. E. 400, holding grantee of leased property entitled to rents maturing after conveyance. See 1 Woods, 220, note.
19 Wall. 348 560, 22 L. 196, THE CONFEDERATE NOTE CASE.
War.- Contracts made in insurrectionary State during Civil War, though solvable in Confederate currency, are valid as between the parties, where not designed to aid the insurrectionary government, p. 556.
Followed in Wilmington, etc., R. R. v. King, 91 U. S. 4, 23 L. 186, Dugger v. Bocock, 104 U. S. 602, 26 L. 848, Effinger v. Kenney, 115 U. S. 573, 29 L. 497, 6 S. Ct. 183, N. 0. Water-Works v. Louisiana Sugar Co., 125 U. 8. 33, 31 L. 613, 8 S. Ct. 749, and Baldy v. Hunter, 171 U. S. 397, 402, 18 S. Ct. 893, 895, all holding guardian's investment of wards' Confederate currency in Confederate bonds not Illegal; Van Hoose v. Bush, 54 Ala. 350, Tayloe v. Dugger, 66 Ala. 449, Trustees v. Turner, 71 Ala. 431, 432, holding note paid during war in Confederate money cannot be sued on; Berry V. Bellows, 30 Ark. 212, holding payment made and accepted in Confederate money discharged debt.
Distinguished in Lam: V. Micou, 112 U. S. 476, 28 L. 760, 5 S. Ct. 232, holding guardian's investment of ward's money in Confederate bonds unlawful.
War.- Under North Carolina scaling act of 1865, presumption is that contracts made in insurrectionary States during Civil War were solvable in Confederate currency, p. 558.
Cited and applied in Stewart v. Salamon, 94 U. 8. 435, 24 L. 276, holding purchasers of railroad bonds contemplated payment in Confederate notes.
Distinguished in Massie v. Byrd, 87 Ala. 679, 6 So. 146, holding in absence of understanding to pay in Confederate money, not collectible in legal money.
Contracts.— Where contract was made during Civil War, in insurrectionary States, payable in “ dollars,” Confederate notes being intended, parol evidence is admissible to prove value of said notes in legal currency at time contract was made, p. 557.
Cited and applied in Rives v. Duke, 105 U. S. 140, 141, 26 L. 1034, holding plaintiff suing on contract may recover amount stipulated at then value of Confederate compared with legal currency; Daughdrill v. Edwards, 59 Ala. 427, holding value of land sold for Confederate money is value in lawful money at time of sale; Miller y. McKinney, 5 Lea, 97, holding specification of dollars serves only to measure quantity of notes, not value, which may be ascertained by proof; arguendo in United States v. Fuller, 4 N. Mex. 360, 5 N. Mex. 87, 20 Pac. 177, holding indictment charging embezzlement of dollars, sufficient, though not specifying kind; generally in Auzerais V. Naglee, 74 Cal. 67, 15 Pac. 373, holding meaning of ambiguous term explainable by parol; In re Curtis, 64 Conn. 514, 42 Am. St. Rep. 205, 30 Atl. 771, holding parol admissible to show special meaning of term used as understood by parties.
Distinguished in Mellen v. Ford, 28 Fed. 646, holding parol evldence inadmissible where context shows sense in which parties used disputed word.
Payment. — Understanding of contracting parties as to currency of payment may be shown from nature of transaction and attendant circumstances as well as from language used; hence, contract in Confederate States payable in “dollars” may be shown to have contemplated Confederate notes, not lawful money, p. 559.
Followed in Taylor v. Bland, 60 Tex. 31, holding understanding as to character of money in which note was to be paid may be show from nature of transaction.
Payment. — Interest is payable in same currency in which principal is to be paid, p. 560.
Cited in New Orleans V. Jackson, 33 La. Ann. 1042, holding 10terest on delinquent taxes payable, like principal, in city scrip.
Usury, as a defense, must be specially pleaded or set up in an. swer to entitle it to consideration, p. 560.
19 Wall. 560-563, 22 L. 161, NUNEZ v. DAUTEL.
Bills and notes.- Promise to pay sum acknowledged due for services as soon as crop can be sold or money raised from other sources is not a promissory note, p. 562.
Cited in The Lykres, 36 Fed. 922, and The Serapis, 37 Fed. 438, both holding master's bottomry obligation payable on arrival at port not a negotiable instrument; Tell City Co. v. Nees, 63 Ind. 249, to point that contracts between individuals to pay when party is able, are valid. See 42 Am. Rep. 367, note.
Payment.— Where agreement is to pay as soon as crop can be sold or money raised otherwise, payment is not conditional to extent of depending finally on alternatives mentioned, but must be made within reasonable time, p. 562.
Cited and applied in Noyes v. Barnard, 63 Fed. 788, 15 U. S. App. 327, holding agreement to compensate from proceeds of sale, implies sale within reasonable time; Crass v. Scruggs, 115 Ala. 267, 22 So. 83, holding where time of payment specified is expressed in terms of contingency, it must be made within reasonable time; Williscon v. Perkins, 51 Cal. 555, holding builder agreeing to pay for work when vessel is sold, entitled to only reasonable time in which to sell; Harkinson v. Dry Placer Co., 6 Colo. 273, holding agreement to pay out of first earnings does not excuse payment on failure of contingency; Whiting v. Gray, 27 Fla. 488, 8 So. 727, 11 L. R. A. 527, holding where no time is expressed in executory contract for performance thereof, law imp per ance in reason. able time; Randall v. Johnson, 59 Miss. 318, 42 Am. Rep. 366, bolding promise to pay after vessel's return enforceable, although vessel is lost; Noland v. Bull, 24 Or. 484, 33 Pac. 985, and Haley v. Harvey, 1 Tex. App. Civ. 618, holding where happening of future event is fixed as time of payment, and event does not happen, payment must be within reasonable time; Johnston v. Schenck, 15 Utah, 494, 50 Pac. 923, holding one cannot avoid liability on contingent promise to pay by putting it out of his power to perform; Campbell v. Short, 35 La. Ann. 450, holding where contract is silent as to quantity of coal to be delivered, parol evidence admissible.
Contracts.- Where payment is to be made within reasonable time, question thereof is for court, p. 563.
Followed in Harkinson V. Dry Placer Co., 6 Colo. 274, holding what is reasonable time for payment a question for court.
Distinguished in Hamilton v. Phonix Ins. Co., 61 Fed. 390, 22 U. S. App. 164, holding question of reasonable time one for jury, where depending on special circumstances of case.
19 Wall. 563–572, 22 L. 184, WILLIAMS v. BANKHEAD.
Appeal and error.- Where only part of record is sent to Supreme Court, and it contains nothing to show that A. was a party to suit, except bare title of cause at head of several orders, in which names of A.'s partners “ et al.” appeared, fact that A. was a party does not sufficiently appear, p. 570.
Cited in McPike v. Wells, 34 Miss. 147, holding record must show person to be party to suit.
Distinguished in Boyd v. Roane, 49 Ark. 412, 413, 5 S. W. 70S, holding phrase "et alios " must be construed to refer to all defendants who have been served.
Parties.- Where person will be directly affected by decree he 18 an indispensable party, p. 571.
Cited and applied in Christian v. Atlantic, etc., R. R., 133 U. S. 241, 33 L. 592, 10 S. Ct. 262, holding State indispensable party to proceeding to establish lien on stock owned by it; Land Co. 1. Elkins, 22 Blatchf. 204, 20 Fed. 546, holding one whose interests in land would be affected by final decree necessary party; Harrison. etc., Co. v. Council Bluffs Water Co., 25 Fed. 172, holding city necessary party to action to establish lien on mains under streets; Bland v. Fleeman, 29 Fed. 672, holding all heirs necessary parties in suit charging administrator with fraudulently converting estate's &ssets; Central Trust Co. v. Florida Ry., 43 Fed. 758, holding where railroad is mortgaged to secure bonds guaranteed by State. decree that mortgage does not cover certain branch is invalid where bondholders and State were not parties; Chadbourn v. Coe, 45 Fed. 827, S. C. affirmed in Circuit Court of Appeals, 51 Fed. 481, 10 U. S. App. 78, holding bill against trustee to subject property fraudulently conveyed to her not sustainable where debtor was not party; Gray V. Havemeyer, 53 Fed. 178, 10 U. 8. App. 456, holding other me. chanic's lienors necessary parties to appeal by one seeking priority of lien; Lawrence v. Times Printing Co., 90 Fed. 28, holding Associated Press necessary party in suit to establish right of purchaser of newspaper to Associated Press dispatches, under vendee's contract; Allen v. Tritch, 5 Colo. 227, allowing cross-bill to be so amended as to include necessary party not made party to original bill; Masters v. Templeton, 92 Ind. 452, holding holder of lien on land proper party in suit to foreclose subsequent mortgage; State v. Burke, 33 La. Ann. 505, holding no adjudication can be made in absence of parties whose rights are to be tested; Gregory v. Merchants' Bank, 171 Mass. 69, 50 N. E. 52, holding one seeking to establish trust in bank deposit must make depositor a party; McPike v. Wells, 54 Miss. 146, holding court will not proceed where person beyond jurisdiction is necesary party: Stevens v. South Ogden Land Co., 14 Utah, 241, 47 Pac. 83, holding conspirators and