Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

not applicable to a stolen bill of lading; Lytle v. Lansing 14T & 71, 37 L. 84, 13 S. Ct. 239 (affirming S. C., 38 Fed 12 where purchaser of municipal bonds knew their validity was being endtested by municipality: Davis v. Bradley, 26 La. Ann. 556 whee bill of exchange was purchased after maturity; Duckett v. Natumal Bank. 88 Md. 23, 41 Ath. 168, where purchaser of county bends was informed before his purchase of non-negotiable character of bemist Arents v. Commonwealth, 18 Gratt. 779, where interest were purchased after maturity.

[ocr errors]

Miscellaneous- Cited in collection of authorities in Tamil Thomas 1 Hughes, 176, F. C. 14.243, as to who is a boon fde brude of negotiable paper: State v. Renk, 5 Bart ST. not in point Enter r. Alden 3 Minn. $A to point in forsee most sue in his (v1 mHETH

2 Wall 123-18 17 L. TA HECKERS v. FOWLER

Covenant-Declaratie a recart serting out a croTAS TÕE seal in which defendant agreed to pay plaintif a FTLD SLI for use of a patented inrezdra, and that covenant had been bruka states & good cause of 1000 P

--

Beference-Cirveit Overt has power with moset If DUTES T refer a cause to a referee to bear and determine a SSIES CHI

[ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

conveyances in fraud of creditors cannot be set up by party to conveyance; Gilliam v. Brown, 43 Miss. 664, where party was allowed to recover from his associate his share of profits arising from trading in cotton during Civil War; Walker v. Jeffries, 45 Miss. 165, 167, 168, holding note given for money which was to be used in the equipment of soldiers to serve in Confederate army is valid; Hatch v. Hanson, 46 Mo. App. 334, 335, where defendant, with others, was owner of successful lottery tickets, he cannot set up illegality of proceedings as defense to action brought by others to recover their share; Carkins v. Anderson, 21 Neb. 368, 32 N. W. 157, an illegal transaction in regard to government lands having been completed, the illegality cannot be set up by one of parties to defeat action by his associate to enforce a contract growing out of the original; Manchester, etc., Ry. Co. v. Concord Ry. Co., 66 N. H. 132, 133, 49 Am. St. Rep. 590, 591, 20 Atl. 386, 9 L. R. A. 695, where illegal contract of consolidation between competing railway lines has been completed, the one who has derived all benefit from contract cannot set up illegality of same as defense to action for accounting; Woodworth v. Bennett, 43 N. Y. 276, 3 Am. Rep. 709, Kiewert v. Rindskopf, 46 Wis. 485, 32 Am. Rep. 734, 1 N. W. 166, Pointer v. Smith, 7 Heisk. 144, and Norton v. Blinn, 39 Ohio St. 150, all holding third party who receives money to pay to another cannot, in action to enforce payment, set up that transaction between original parties was illegal; dissenting opinion in King v. Winants, 71 N. C. 474, 17 Am. Rep. 15, majority distinguishing the case; De Leon v. Trevino, 49 Tex. 93, 95, 30 Am. Rep. 103, 106, where note given in settlement of profits derived from illegal trade was held valid; Pfeuffer v. Maltby, 54 Tex. 461, 38 Am. Rep. 632, where action to compel accounting for profits derived from illegal trading during Civil War was sustained; Patty Co. v. City Bank. 15 Tex. Civ. App. 484, 485, 41 S. W. 177, holding profits made by partnership in transactions against public policy are partnership assets as against individual creditors of partners; McDonald v. Lund, 13 Wash. 418, 421, 43 Pac. 349, 350, where party who had been partner of another in conducting a gambling business recovered from his associate his share of profits derived from business; Heckman v. Swartz, 50 Wis. 270, 6 N. W. 892, and National Distilling Co. v. Cream Imp. Co., 86 Wis. 356, 39 Am. St. Rep. 904, 56 N. W. 866, mere fact that vendor is member of unlawful trust for purpose of gaining monopoly of trade of certain goods is no defense to an action against vendee for purchase price of goods; Hubbard v. Mulligan, 57 Pac. 743 (Colo.), upholding a subsequent valid agreement, notwithstanding prior invalid one.

Approved, arguendo, in the following cases, which are decided on other grounds: Dissenting opinions in Burck v. Taylor, 152 U. S. 668, 38 L. 590, 14 S. Ct. 709, United States Express Co. v. Lucas, 36 Ind. 369, State v. Louisiana Bank, 20 La. Ann. 469, Antoine v.

War.- A public blockade exists until notice of its discontinuance is given, p. 150.

War.-A vessel, in sailing from a neutral port, with intent to enter a blockaded port, commits an illegal act, and is liable to capture and condemnation as prize, p. 151.

Cited and rule applied in The Admiral, 3 Wall. 615, 18 L. 60, holding a vessel which sailed from England with knowledge that certain ports were blockaded had no right to sail up to a blockaded port for purpose of seeing whether actual blockade existed; The Adula, 89 Fed. 359, following rule and condemning vessel.

Distinguished on facts in The Newfoundland, 89 Fed. 101, 103. Miscellaneous.-Cited, arguendo, in dissenting opinion in Billgerry v. Branch, 19 Gratt. 405, 100 Am. Dec. 685, the majority holding the rules of international law apply to transactions between citizens within limits of the Confederacy and residents in territory under Federal authority.

2 Wall. 160-177, 17 L. 922, FREEBORN v. SMITH.

Courts.- Territorial courts are courts of the United States, p. 173. Cited to this effect in In re Osterhaus, 18 Fed. Cas. 895, 896, where they are held to be so within meaning of act of May 12, 1864. Cited. arguendo, in Hastings v. Johnson, 2 Nev. 193, 195, and Sparrow v. Strong, 2 Nev. 365, where it is held State court has jurisdiction to hear and determine causes left pending in late United States territorial courts.

Constitutional law. Where Territory has been admitted to Union, but no provision made for disposal of cases pending on appeal in the Supreme Court, Congress may pass a subsequent act making provision for such cases, p. 175.

Cited in Koenigsberger v. Richmond Silver Min. Co., 158 U. S. 48, 39 L. 892, 15 S. Ct. 754, in construction of statute providing for admission of the Dakotas into the Union, and the erection of Federal courts therein; Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 478, 19 S. Ct. 734, holding it within power of legislature to grant a new remedy by way of review of adjudged case; Ames v. Colorado Ry. Co., 4 Dill. 257, F. C. 324, as construing statute relative to admission of territories and establishing of courts therein; dissenting opinion in Aycock v. Martin, 37 Ga. 185, as authority for holding there is no restriction on retrospective legislation so long as it does not impair the obligation of a contract; Freeland v. Williams. 131 U. S. 420, 33 L. 199, 9 S. Ct. 768, discussing retrospective legislation; note, 8 Am. Dec. 140.

Appeal and error.- Ruling of trial court on motion for new trial will not be reviewed in appellate court, p. 176.

Cited and followed in Crumpton v. United States, 138 U. S. 363, 34 L. 959, 11 S. Ct. 356, the granting or refusing of such a motion is a matter of discretion; to same effect, Nolan v. Colorado Cent. Ry. Co., 63 Fed. 934, 27 U. S. App. 427.

Evidence.- Correspondence or conversations between partners, with their agent, is not admissible to prove their own case against a third person, p. 176.

Case cited and rule applied in Insurance Co. of North America v. Guardiola, 129 U. S. 643, 32 L. 803, 9 S. Ct. 426, where agent's letters to his principal were held incompetent to show quantity of goods shipped in suit against third person; Dawson v. Pogue, 18 Or. 110, 22 Pac. 646, 6 L. R. A. 184, where a writing prepared by partners to effect that all partnership relations existing were at an end, was, under circumstances, held inadmissible in action against firm.

Miscellaneous.- Cited in dissenting opinion in Lincoln Min. Co. v. Court, 7 N. Mex. 517, 38 Pac. 590, as to control Congress may exercise over territories.

2 Wall. 177-190, 17 L. 822, SHEETS v. SELDEN.

Deed by a public officer on behalf of the State is the deed of the State, although the officer is the nominal party, p. 187.

Followed in De Lancey v. Piepgras, 138 N. Y. 42, 33 N. E. 825, where tax deed was made by comptroller.

Deeds.- Everything essential to beneficial use and enjoyment of property designated in a deed passes by the conveyance in the absence of language contra; therefore, certain parcels of land not specifically designated were held to pass by grant from the State of a canal, p. 188.

Cited and principle applied in Miller v. Alliance Ins. Co., 19 Blatchf. 310, 7 Fed. 651, holding owner of millsite and buildings is sole owner of property within meaning of condition of insurance policy requiring insured shall be; Bank of British North America v. Miller, 7 Sawy. 169, 6 Fed. 551, where, under circumstances of grant, an easement in gross was held to pass with the land; McShane v. Carter, 80 Cal. 315, 22 Pac. 179, holding a ditch, by means of which a mine is operated, passes by conveyance of mining property; Branson v. Studabaker, 133 Ind. 165, 166, 33 N. E. 104, and Monmouth v. Plimpton, 77 Me. 558, 1 Atl. 694, both holding, in conveyance of mill and millrace, the land forming an essential part of the thing conveyed is also granted; Jackson v. Trullinger, 9 Or. 399, by grant of a mill, "with appurtenances," the dam and all privileges of flowing essential to enjoyment of mill and head of water passes. Cited, arguendo, in Blair v. Kiger, 111 Ind 194, 12 N. E. 293, where it is held canal company acquires title

of agent to make known facts relative to subject-matter of his agency; Tennant v. Dunlop, - Va. —, 33 S. E. 623, collecting cases, purchase of deceased partner's interest.

Distinguished in Patrick v. Bowman, 149 U. S. 414, 37 L. 791, 13 S. Ct. 812 (reversing S. C., 36 Fed. 139, 140), where it was held partners had reached an agreement as to sale before discovery of facts by managing partner which increased value of property.

Partnership. If one partner is made sole manager and is carrying on business at a distance from the other, who is in poor health and relies on managing partner for true accounts, the relation of partners becomes fiduciary, pp. 83, 87.

Cited and approved in Butler v. Prentiss, 158 N. Y. 61, 52 N. E. 656, holding one partner will not be permitted to profit at expense of other from contract induced by abuse of fiduciary relations. Approved, arguendo, in Bloomfield v. Buchanan, 14 Or. 183, 12 Pac. 239, and note to Furgeson v. Dent, 24 Fed. 430, 431.

Miscellaneous. Cited erroneously in Railroad Co. v. Durant, 95 U. S. 579, 24 L. 393.

2 Wall. 87-96, 17 L. 836, BADGER v. BADGER.

Limitation of actions.- Equity will not entertain a demand to set aside an alleged fraudulent administrator's sale when cestui que trust has had knowledge of alleged fraudulent acts and acquiesced therein for great many years, p. 93.

Cited in following to effect that party who seeks to rescind or avoid a contract or transaction must do so as soon as may be reasonably done after he becomes aware of facts which give him this option: Twin-Lick Oil Co. v. Marbury, 91 U. S. 592, 23 L. 331, and Hayward v. National Bank, 96 U. S. 618, 24 L. 858, where delay of four years barred right; Philippi v. Philippe, 115 U. S. 157, 29 L. 340, 5 S. Ct. 1184, holding, when trustee repudiates trust and claims to hold as his own, statute of limitations begins to run against cestui que trust from time he acquires knowledge of such repudiation; Rolling Mill v. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co., 120 U. S. 260, 30 L. 641, 7 S. Ct. 544, where delay of six months by board of directors of a corporation in matter of affirming a contract made in its behalf, was held unreasonable; Speidel v. Henrici, 120 U. S. 387, 30 L. 720, 7 S. Ct. 612, where delay of fifty years in asserting claim to share in trust funds was held to bar right; Marsh v. Whitmore, 1 Hask. 404, F. C. 9,122, where delay of eleven years by pledgor in seeking to avoid sale of bonds pledged as security and purchased by pledgee, was held unreasonable; Livingston v. Proprietor, 16 Blatchf. 560, 561, F. C. 8,418, where a delay of fifty years in asserting claim to shares of stock, when one from whom claimant derived title knew such stock was claimed by others, was held to bar claim, because of acquiescence and laches; Etting v. Marx, 4 Hughes, 323, 324, 4 Fed.

« ForrigeFortsett »