« ПредишнаНапред »
required to pay the taxes and mechanic's lien cient to satisfy such judgment in case No. 7,907, upon the homestead, which were paid off by the then said policies of insurance were still to be bank. On the same day the hank took two re- retained by the bank, “to secure whatever denewal notes, of $4,434. 10 each, for the balance ficiency there may then remain unpaid on such due it upon the old debt of $10,000, contracted judgment 7,907, until such deficiency is fully previous to 1890, and upon which payments had paid, or until the said life policies mature." been made, and these two renewal notes, together ELLIS, J. (after stating the facts): The inwith the notes for the $3,200, and twelve notes surance policy in the New York Life Insurance for $50.00 each, for the amount which the bank Company had been paid up since 1874. It was agreed to loan in the future, were all included in the property of Eliza J. Price, the beneficiary the new mortgage, which covered the homestead named therein. The unconditional assignment alone, while the two notes of $4,434.10 each re to the bank of January 19, 1894, was void because mained secured by the deed previously given to such bank could not have an insurable interest in Auld in trust for the bank as renewals of the orig the life of John M. Price. Insurance Co. y. inal debt. On the 21st day of March, 1896, the Sturges, 18 Kan. 93. Parol evidence was admisbank brought a suit in foreclosure case No. 7,907 sible for the purpose of showing that, although against Price and wife to foreclose the mortgage such assignment was absolute on its face, the last given, to-wit, upon the homestead, and in real intent of the parties was that the insurance said action took a personal judgment upon all of policy should be turned over to the bank, under said notes against Price and wife for $16,348.44, such assignment for the purpose of collateral seand an order for the sale of the homestead and curity merely. To show such an intention, it was application of the proceeds. After bringing said necessary to prove an agreement to that effect action, the bank brought another action, No. between the bank and the owner of the policy, 7,908, based upon the two renewal notes of Eliza J. Price; for there was no evidence in the $4,434.10 each, to recover a personal judgment case that John M. Price had authority to act as against Price and wife thereon, and to foreclose her agent in thai bebalf, and his agency could the deed given to Auld as a mortgage to secure not be presumed from the mere fact that he was tbe same; and after the rendition of said judg her husband. The only evidence in the record ment of $16,348.44, in said action No. 7,908, the showing any agreement other than an uncondibank recovered judgment in the other action tional assignment on the part of Mrs. Price is the brought subsequently upon said two notes, and stipulation bearing date May 21, 1897, and enthe interest thereon, which last judgment tered into some time after that date. Tbat stipuamounted to $11,674.86, against Price and his lation, if based upon a sufficient consideration, wife, and in said action a foreclosure of said deed might be held to be a ratification of a former was decreed, and the property therein described agreement which seems to have been entered was ordered sold, and the proceeds applied to into with John M. Price, to the effect that the said last-named judgment. Soon after the rendi bank should hold the policy as collateral setion of the last judgment a stipulation was en curity, subject, however, to the reservation that tered into between the bank and Price and wife, it should only be held as collateral security for in which it was agreed as follows: “(1) Tbat the payment of wbatever should be justly and execution shall be stayed on such judgment of legally due on the judgment rendered in action foreclosure in said cause No. 7.907 for ten months No. 7,907; for such were the express terms of the from the rendition thereof; (2) that in case the stipulation. The court holds in this case that at said John M. Price and Eliza J. Price sball fail | the time of the execution of such stipulation that to keep the taxes promptly paid on the real es judgment was extinguished; that tbe debt theretate hereinbefore described in said first entitled by evidenced bad been merged in judgment 7,908, cause No. 7,907, and to keep said premises well rendered later by the district court of Atchison and adequately insured for the benefit of tbe said county, in an action between the same parties. plaintiff bank, then, and in such event or failure, For the reasons for such decision and the authorsaid bank may pay all such taxes and insurance, I ities upon which the same is based, reference is and keep the said property free and clear of all hereby made to the opinion of Mr. Justice Greene taxes and liens, and adequately insured, up to in the case of Price v. Bank (No. 11,887, renthe time of the sale of such property on execu- dered at the present term of this court) 64 Pac. tion under such judgment." It was therein Rep. 637. further agreed that said bank was to retain in its Now, the only consideration for such stipula. possession said policies of insurance upon the life tion is the agreement on the part of the bank to of said John M. Price as collateral security, and, forbear to issue execution upon said judgment if the said policies should mature and payment 7,907 for the period of 10 months from the date of death losses thereon be made before tbe sale of its rendition. Because the judgment was ex, of said homestead under execution, the proceeds tinguished, because it no longer existed, the of the policies should be applied on said judg- plaintiff had no right to cause an execution to isment in said case No. 7,907; and in case of sale sue upon it within 10 montbs or at any other thereof before the said policies should mature, time. An agreement to forbear to do an act and if the proceeds of the sale should be insuffi- which a party has no legal right to do cannot constitute a sufficient consideration for a promise decided as cases of compromise, and are clearly and undertaking on the part of another. "In or- distinguishable from the case at bar. der to constitute forbearance a valuable consid- In Bank v. Colcord, 15 N. H. 119, the court held eration, tbere must be a subsisting legal right in that forbearance to sue is not a good considerathe ciaimant wbich he agrees to forbear; for, if tion for a promise where there is no debt in exthe claim be invalid or illegal, tbe forbearance is istence. ineffectual." 6 Am. & Eng. Enç. Law (20 Ed.), In Gould v. Armstrong, supra, the court held: 742, and cases cited. See, also, Gould v. Arm “A promise to forbear from prosecuting a suit strong, 2 Hall, 266; Chit. Cont. 35, 36; Bates v. which could not be maintained would, of course, Sandy, 27 III. App. 552, and cases cited; Haynes be without consideration, and so not binding.' v. Thom, 8 Fost. 386; May v. Coffin, 4 Mass. 341, In Chit. Cont., supra, the rule is laid down that, 347; Warder v. Tucker, 7 Mass. 449; Robinson v. in order to render the agreement to forbear and Jewett, 116 N. Y. 40, 22 N. E. Rep. 224; Widiman the forbearance of a claim a sufficient consideraV. Brown, 83 Mich. 241, 47 N. W. Rep. 231; tion for a new promise, it is essential that the deCowper v. Green, 7 Mees. & W. 633; McDonald mand forborne should be sustainable at law or in v. Neilson, 2 Cow. 140; Crosby v. Wood, 6 N. Y. equity, and the consideration will fail if the de369; Cline v. Templeton, 78 Ky. 550; Schroeder mand is without foundation. v. Fink, 60 Md. 436; Gunning v. Royal, 59 Miss. In Haynes v. Thom, supra, the court beld: “A 45; Davisson v. Ford, 23 W. Va. 617; Appeal of promissory note, given to discharge a merely Lakens (Pa.), 22 Atl. Rep. 892, 13 L. R. A. 581. supposed liability, or to avoid an ideal danger,
In the case of Wade v. Simeon, 2 C. B. 548, the wbich has no foundation in fact or in law, is declaration averred that the plaintiff bad brought without consideration." And in the same case an action, and in consideration of the new prom the court said: “If tbe note was given under a ise had forborne to prosecute the case thus com | misapprehension of the defendant's liability, and menced. The court held that the previous action with no valid consideration passing between the could not have been maintained, and in the parties, he is not bound to pay it. An ideal opinion Chief Justice Tindal said: “In order to danger, which has no foundation tn fact or in constitute a binding promise, the plaintiff must | law, can form no consideration for a note." show a good consideration,-something bene In Appeal of Lukens, supra, the Supreme Court ficial to the defendant, or detrimental to the of Pennsylvania held: “Abandonment of legal plaintiff. Detrimental to the plaintiff it cannot proceedings, which are without merit, is no conbe, if he has no cause of action; and beneficial to sideration for the revocation of a valid and bind the defendant it cannot be, for, in contemplation ing contract." of law, the defense, upon such an admitted state The case of Prout v. Fire Dist., 154 Mass. 450, of facts, must be successful."
28 N. E. Rep. 679, was purely one of comproIn the case of Graham V. Johnson, L. R. 8 Eq. | mise. The court said: "The plaintiff's claim, 36, the defendant held a bond executed by the whether on a final determination it might or plaintiff, which the latter was entitled to have might not be found to be valid, was sufficiently canceled as being voluntary. At the plaintiff's substantial to furnish a good consideration for request the defendant forbore suit on the bord, the promise." In the same opinion occurs the the plaintiff agreeing to pay from an expected following: "The case of Palfrey v. Railroad Co., inheritance. It was held, devertheless, that the 4 Allen, 55 is to be distinguished on the ground plaintiff was entitled to a decree of cancellation, that there it was plain that the plaintiff had no and that the promise to pay the defendant was real claim to be compromised, and Wade v. not binding Lord Romilly, M. R., in rendering Simeon, 2 C. B. 548, rests on the same ground." the opinion, said: “The question I bave to con In Robinson v. Jewett, supra, it was decided sider is wbether, assuming, as I must assume, that the performance of an act which the party that the plaintiff when he made the promise was is under a legal obligation to perform cannot conignorant that the court of chancery would re stitute a consideration for a new promise. strain an action on the bond without requiring In Moon v. Martin, 122 Ind. 211, 23 V. E. Rep. him to pay off what had been paid by Barlow to 668, the court sustained a compromise of a suit the obligee, bis promise, made in copsideration actually commenced, and held that the discontinof Barlow's forbearance to sue, is binding on aim. uance of the suit was a sufficient consideration I think it is not." And, following, the court ex for a promise to pay money. But in the same pressly held that, because the action could not case the court held: “A promise to give somehave been maintained, the agreement to forbear thing for the compromise of a claim, about wbich would not be a consideration for a promise of the there is merely a dispute and controversy, and defendant to pay.
for which there is no legal foundation whatever, We bave examined the case of Callisher v. Bis is not sufficient to sustain a suit at law. Jarvis v. choffsheim, L. R. 5 Q. B. 449, and Ockford v. Sutton, 3 Ind. 289; Mortgage Co. v. Henderson, Barellis, 25 Law T. (V. S.) 504, wbich are some 111 Ind. 24, 12 N. E. Rep. 88, and cases cited. times quoted as antagonizing, though they do Emery v. Royal, 117 Ind. 290, 20 N. E. Rep. 150, not overrule, Wade v. Simeon, supra, and Graham and cases cited." V. Johnson, supra. They were considered and In Clipe v. Templeton, supra, the court said:
"It is laid down, both in Parsons on Contracts bound by such promise." For these reasons the and in Chitty on Contracts, that an agreement to judgment of the district court will be reversed, forbear to prosecute a claim which is wholly and | and the case remanded, with directions to enter certainly unsustainable at law or in equity is no judgment in the court below in favor of Eliza J. consideration for a promise. * * * Tbis proposi Price and against the defendant, the First tion appears to be so well established that further National Bank of Atchison, Kansas, in accordcitation of authorities seems to us unnecessary." | ance with this opinion. All the justices concurIn Schroeder v. Fink, supra, defendant's fatber
ring. died owing plaintiff, and the latter threatened suit. In consideration of his forbearance, de
NOTE.--Recent Cases on the Validity as a Valu. fendants gave their note in compromise of the
able Consideration to Support a Contract of an
Agreement to Forbear.-Forbearance is a valuable claim. The estate of deceased was insolvent, and
consideration to support a contract whenever there is plaintiff could have no action against defendants.
a legal or doubtful right in the claimant which is en. In the action upon the new note the court said:
forceable at the time of the agreement, but which he "There was no consideration for the new prom
agrees to forbear. For instance a promise in writing ise. * * * Defendants could not be held liable to pay the debt of another, in consideration of forto pay."
bearance to sue is founded on sufficient considera. In Gunning v. Royal, supra, it was held that tion and is valid in law. But if the creditor has not "the existence of a dispute or controversy be
the legal right to sue at any time during which he tween parties is not a sufficient consideration to
promises to forbear suit, the promise to pay in con
sideration of such forbearance is witbout considerasupport a promise to pay Imoney in settlement of
tion, and consequently void. Martin v. Black, 20 Ala. it, where no valid demand for anything wbatever
309. It is no objection to the validity of the defend. exists in favor of the promisee."
ant's agreement that there was no particular time In Davisson v. Ford, supra the syllabus reads: specified as the period of forbearance. The law pre* * * * If there is no foundation for such sumes that it shall be for a reasonable time. Hakes claim of liability, then the promise made to settle v. Hotcb kiss, 23 Vt. 231; Moore v. Kenney, 83 Me. 80; this assumed liability has no sufficient considera
Strong v. Sheffield, 144 N. Y. 392; Howev. Taggart, tion to sustain it, and no suit can be based on
133 Mass. 284. It must be borne in mind, however,
that a promise of forbearance, in order to constitute euch promise." And at page 627 the court said:
a sufficient consideration for a promise must be for & *.But, to make such consideration good, it is not
reasonable time. A "gbort time," for instance, would only necessary that the dispute should be one in
not be a good consideration as the promisor might which one party sets up that there was a liability
bring suit in an hour after the promise was made. on tbe other, but if it be assumed that such lia Gates v. Hackethal, 57 III. 534. bility exists, when in fact or law there is no foun The exact limits of this subject will be suggested dation for such liability, a promise made by the by the following carefully selected cases. We shall party who is thus claimed to be liable, but who
confine the citation of authorities, however, to cases clearly is not liable, either in law or equity,
involving the forbearance of legal remedies. For in.
stance, forbearance to eject a tenant at will for nonwould be a promise made on no valuable or suffi
payment of rent is a good consideration to a guaran. cient consideration, and it could not be enforced
tor of past and future rent. Vinal v. Ricbardson, 95 by suit." "As the consideration must have some
Mass. 521. A agreed to pay what he owed to B, and value and reality, the assumption of a supposed also the debt of another, the money to be sent by exdanger or liability, which has no foundation in press within a week. B agreed to wait for a week. law or in fact, is not a valuable or sufficient con. Held, that B's promise was upon a good consideration, sideration, nor is the performence of that wbich
and that a suit brought by him was prematurely
brought. Leslie v. Conway, 59 Cal. 442; Morgan v. the party was under a previous valid legal obliga
Bank, 44 Ill. App. 582. There must of course be an tion to do; and where one, tbrough mistake of
agreement to forbear, not a mere forbearanee. Thus the law acknowledges himself under an obliga
& mere forbearance by a creditor of a deceased per. tion which the law does not impose, be is not
son to pursue his claim against the estate, there be. bound by such promise." 1 Pars. Cont. 437, 439,
ing no agreement on his part to that effect, is not a and cases cited. See, also, Warder v. Tucker, sufficient consideration to support a promise by the supra.
widow of deceased to pay the claim. Sbadburne v. Now, in the case at bar, the bank did pot sti
Daly, 76 Cal. 355. When a creditor, as surety of an
insolvent debtor, baving in bis hands property of the pulate to refrain from doing any act which it bad
debtor, which he desires to retain or have applied on a legal right to do. Mrs. Price, supposing her
his claim, promises another creditor that, if he will self liable to pay the judgment rendered in 7,907,
not institute legal proceedings against the common agreed to turn over to the bank the insurance
debtor, he will pay the debt, the promise is founded policy in controversy in this case, with the under on a sufficient consideration and, it accepted, will standing that the proceeds of such policy should constitute a valid contract. Mathews v. Seaver, 34 be applied by the bank in satisfaction of sucb ex Neb. 592. Forbearance of execution on a judgment tinguished judgment. As the judgment itself bad is a sufficient consideration for the surrender of a no legal existence, the funds could not have been
right of action for an alleged breach of contract. Old.
ham v. Kirchner, 79 N. C. 106. A promise by a third 80 applied, and it is certain that she did acknow
mortgagee to forbear foreclosing is sufficient to supledge herself “under no obligation wbich the law
port a promise by a second mortgagee to keep the in. does not impose,” for which reason she is not I terest on all senior mortgages paid. Burke v. Dillon, 92 Iowa, 557. Where in consideration of the holder | land if the son would remain with the father aud ag. of a junior trust deed agreeing to pay tbe interest on sist him until the son's marriage, was not without a prior trust deed, the bolder of the latter agrees not consideration or obligation on the father because of to foreclose until the junior incumbrancer has had the minority of the sop. Lalollett v. Kyle, 51 Ind. time to sell of certain nursery stock on the premises 446. Where defendants bad contracted to store and in the ordinary course of business, the forbearance care for the property in controversy for one year and will be construed to be for a reasonable time, and had agreed to deliver the same on demand to plaint. will support tbe contract. Cbiles v. Wallace, 83 Mo. iff, without claiming a lien thereon, a further agree. 84. One who has made a contract in consideration ment to so store and care for such property for a lien that another will forbear to enforce a legal right for such services is without consideration. Esterly which he is pursuing cannot have relief from bis Machine Co. v. Pringle, 41 Neb. 265. Where a party contract on the ground that the motives of the second gave to a constable his written obligation to pay a person in pursuing his rigbt were blameworthy. Ben. sum of money, the mere consideration of which was Ler v. Van Norden, 27 La. Ann. 473.
the forbearance on the part of the officer from levying We now note the exception announced in the prin: a writ of attachment on the property of a third per. cipal case that an agreement to forbear from doing
son, and the evidence showed that there was no inwhat one has no legal rigbt to do or a promise to do tention on the part of the officer to make the levy, what one is already under legal obligation to do, is the property being exempt from execution, it was not a valuable consideration to support a contract to held ibat the contract was void. Hennesey v. Hill, do something in return. For instance, an agreement 52 III. 281. An agreement by a debtor not to go into not to sue on a note, which is due, in consideration | bankruptcy and thereby be discharged from a certain of the payment at the end of each year of interest not | debt, or at least imperil its collection, furnishes a exceeding the rate provided for by tbe note, is with. sufficient consideration to support a contract by the out consideration. Holmes v. Boyd, 90 Ind. 332. A creditor to take less for the debt tban the full amount contact between a city contractor, for the construc. thereof. Dawson v. Beall, 68 Ga. 328. tion of a sewer in a street, and a railway company Cases on this subject might be cited ad infinitum, baving a right of way over the street, that the con. but wbile they all evidence a wide diversity of facts, tractor will pay the company for supporting its tracks yet they all come within the principles announced in wbile be builds the sewer is without consideration the cases already cited. If one has a right wbich he and void, since the railroad right of way is subject to can legally enforce, bis forbearance to enforce it is the paramout right of the city to build the sewer, a valuable consideration to support a contract. Tbere and it is incumbent on the company to protect its must of course be the agreement to forbear and the own tracks. Kansas City, etc. Ry. Co. v. Morley, 46 right of the promisor must be clear and free from Mo. App. 304. A promise made by the owner of prop doubt; but in every such ease, whatever may be the erty in order to obtain possession thereof from one statement of facts, the agreement to forbear will sup. wrongfully withholding it is without consideration, port a contract. though the party withbo.ding it did not know of tbe ownership. Fink v. Smith, 170 Pa. $t. 124. The court
JETSAM AND FLOTSAM. in this case said: “A promise made by the owner to obtain possession of his goods wbich at the time are
SEMI-ANNUAL BANKRUPTCY REPORT. wrongfully withheld from him, is without considera. There is, perbaps, no better barometer of business tion. The learned judge below, however, assumes conditions prevailing throughout the United States tbat there is no evidence that Fink knew the prop-| than disclosed in the reports of the practical operaerty to belong to Smith, and therefore the contract tion of the bankruptcy law, made by the referees should be treated as a compromise of doubtful litiga and clerks of the federal courts. The summary of tion, wbicb is a good consideration to support a con. the semi annual reports of this business for the tract. But the error in this view is, that Fink's period ending March 31, 1901, recently submitted to wrongful possession did not depend on what he the attorney general by E. C. Brandenburg, the well. knew, but on the fact, was it Smith's property? Had known author and expert, in charge of bankruptcy be demanded it from him who wrongfully detained matters in the department of justice, discloses some it! If these were the facts, and they are not denied. interesting facts. It appears that during tbis period then, there was no consideration for Smith's promise, | 9,516 voluntary petitions were filed, as against 8,000 for no benefit passed to Smith, and Fink sustained no for the preceding six months, 12,120 for the six loss by the contract; to hold that tbe abandonment of months ending March 31, 1900, 10,124 for the six a wholly wrongful detention of anotber's property montbs ending September 30, 1899, and 9,062 for the can form the basis of a compromise contract with the six montbs ending March 31, 1899, tbus showing no owner is direct encouragement to the commission of appreciable variation from the average number of wrong for profit, and for this very reason the law petitions filed since the law went into operation, bolds tbe contract to be without consideration." An though it is over 2,600 less than for the correspond. agreement by cestui que trust to pay the trustee com: ing period of last year. The report sbows furtber. missions on the income received and paid out by him, more that a large percentage of those taking advan. by which no duties are imposed on the trustee other tage of the voluntary feature of the law are old in. tban such as he is bound to perform by virtue of bis solvents, who are seeking this means of resuscitating office, is witbout consideration. Wildey v. Robinson, themselves in the business world, thougb it is practi. 85 Hun, 362. A contract between the guardian of an cally impossible to definitely state the exact dumber. insane busband and the wife that the latter shall care Mr. Brandenburg, by reason of his intimate relations for the husband and receive a certain sum for her with the subject has kept in close touch with the services, is without consideration and void. Sbe business interests, and states that it may be safely owes the services independently of contract. Grant | said that with one or two exceptions, for which con: v. Green, 41 Iowa, 88. A parol contract by which a I gress will doubtless make provision at an early date, father agreed to convey to bis infant son certain the law is meeting with almost universal approba
by the West Publishing Company in the prepara. tion of this digest. The Century edition of the American Digest with its annual continuations are undoubtedly the most valuable tools of the American lawyer. Published by the West Publish. ing Company, St. Paul, Minn.
tion. As time passes its superiority over many of the State insolvency and assignment laws in reducing the expense of administration to a minimum, with the resultant of maximum dividends, together with the disappearance of preferences, either through legal proceedings or fraud, is redounding to the advantage of the business world. Nearly every feature of any consequence in the law has now been interpreted by the federal courts throughout the country, while the United States Supreme Court bas passed upon seyeral fundamental questions, tbus placing congress in a position to act advisedly upon the question of amendments when suggested to tbat body at its coming session. The experience gained by the com. mercial interests under the present law has afforded a keener insight into its practical advantages than was expected or could have been anticipated, and while the existence of the present law is no guaranty against fraud, or that the dishonest debtor will not endeavor to use its machinery to his advantage, and to the detriment of the creditor whenever possible, yet the opportunities under the various State assign. ment and insolvency laws were so much greater and the frauds frequently so much more flagrant, that the federal law has come to be looked upon as one of the most beneficent and advantageous to tbe business world that has been placed upon our statute books for many years.
Mr. Brandenburg adds, that as a rule the number of petitions in bankruptcy vary with the States having the greatest population and amount of business. Thus the States owing the greatest number of volun. tary petitions filed during the last six months are: Illinois 1,312, New York 1,263, Massachusetts 1,000, Iowa 460, Obio 439, and Alabama 422; while the lowest number are shown in the State of Nevada where none were filed. Arizona and Hawaii 2 each, Delaware 5, New Mexico 8 and Idabo 10. Of the in. voluntary petitions the greatest number were filed in the following States: New York 230, Pennsylvania 132, Illinois 70, Massachusetts 52, Kentucky 60, and Georgia and Texas 48 each; while in the States of Kansas and Nevada no petitions were filed, and in Hawaii and New Mexico 1 each, and Delaware, In dian Territory, North Dakota and Oregon 2 eacb.
BOOKS RECEIVED. The Tax Law of the State of New York, being L,
1896, ch. 908, entitled "An Act in Relation to Tax. ation, Constituting ch. 24, of the General Laws," with Amendments of 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900 and 1901. Annotated with all the decisions since the passage of such Act to and including Vol. 166 N. Y. 494, 59 App. Div. 288, and 34 Misc. 432. With forms for lawyers, assessors, collectors and other officers. By H. Noyes Greene, of the Troy Bar, with a chapter on the powers and duties of asses. sors, by J. Newton Fiero, Counsel for the State Board of Tax Commissioners; author of "Special Actions and Special Proceedings." Second Edition. Albany, N. Y. Matthew Bender, 1901. Sheep, pp. 349. Price, $3.00. Review will fol.
low. The American State Reports, containing the cases of
general value and authority subsequent to those contained in the "American Decisions" and the "American Reports," derided in the courts of last resort of the several States. Selected, re. ported, and annotated, by A.C. Freeman, and the associate editors of the “American De. cisions.” Vol. 78. San Francisco. Bancroft. Whitney Company, Law Publishers and Law
Booksellers, 1901. The Civil Service Law of the State of New York. A
treatise upon the law as to appointments to office, removals from otice, and tenure in otfice, as embodied in the New York Civil Service Law and the “Veteran" Laws, with citations to all ad. judicated cases in New York, and Copious References to Analogous Statutes and to Decisions by the Federal Courts, apd Courts of other States, and containing the New York State Civil Service Rules and Classification. By William Miller Col. lier, President of the New York State Civil Ser: vice Commission; author of "Collier on Bank ruptcy;" editor of "The American Bankruptcy Reports," ete. Albany, N. Y. Matthew Bender 1901. Buckram, pp. 440, price $4.50. Review will follow,
BOOK REVIEWS. AMERICAN DIGEST.
Vol. 1900 B of the American Digest covering the period from April 1st to September 30, 1900, has just come to our attention. The change from one volume to two volumes a year of this publication was made in 1899 because of the extremely unwieldy size into which they were growing. The semi-annual volume, however, is fast approaching the same size of the an. nual volumes of a few years ago. This certainly speaks "volumes" for tbe marvelous increase of litigation in the United States, and furnishes a tinal argument against the oft repeated assertion that litigation is decreasing and the legalf business generally in a decadent state. Nowhere in the world is the profession of the law more profitable than in the United States, and no better evidence of that prosperity can be found than in the fact that such a splendidly edited and expensive volume as the American Digest can be published twice a year and furoished to the Bar at the low price of $6.00 per vol. ume and still leave a substantial profit to the publisher. In no other country in the world bave the members of the legal profession access to such an accurate, complete and uniform classification of cur: rent opinions of courts of last resort as is furnished
WEEKLY DIGEST. ARKANSAS...
..........10, 40, 81, 100 GEORGIA.....
. ..... 94 KENTUCKY..................2, 16, 18, 24, 39, 61, 66, 73, 82, 90 MICHIGAN, 5, 6, 11, 13, 28, 31, 32, 44, 45, 47, 55, 56, 60, 68, 65,
67, 68, 69, 72, 84, 85, 89, 96, 99, 101 MISSOURI .......
.............23, 34, 38, 49 SOUTH DAKOTA....
..............29, 42, 76 TENNUSM XK.......................26, 33, 36, 43, 64, 83, 99, 102 TEX18, 1, 3, 8, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 48, 50, 57, 59, 71, 75, 76,
77, 80, 89, 96 UNITED STATES C.C...
.......... 12. 30. 35, 92 UNITED STATES C. C. OF APP., 7, 14, 17, 41, 46, 51, 52, 53,
54, 78, 87, 92, 93, 97 UNITED STATES D. WISCONSIN.....
1. ACCOUNTS – Payment - Application.- Where a debtor makes a payment on an account of several items, be is entitled to have the payment credited on such items as he directs.-CRAWFORD V. PANCOAST, Tex , 62 8. W. Rep. 559.
2. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT – Contingent Fee.- Where M, against whom judgment had been rendered for the recovery of land, employed attorneys to regain the
:9, 15, 37, 58, 62, 70, 74, 79, 86