Графични страници
PDF файл
[ocr errors]

to prevent the collection of plaintiff's judgment and the lien claimed by plaintiff as set forth in and defeat the lien thereof; that the said grantors his complalnt; that subsequently to the return of had no right or authority, under the terms and the unsatisfied execution the plaintiff caused anprovisions of the will, to make said deeds, and other execution to be issued and levied upon the the same were not made under the order of court, ''property in controversy, and the same was adveror in the course of administration of said estate, tised for sale by the sheriff, whereupon the deor pursuant to any power contained in the will, | fendant, the Provident Life & Trust Company, apnor for the purpose of settling the estate of the plied to the federal court for an injunction against deceased, nor under any order of distribution this plaintiff, alleging that it was the absolute thereof; that the said sales of real estate were owner of the said real estate, and upon the prayer not necessary to the payment of debts of the of said company an injunction was issued restrainestate or legacies, nor was any considerable por ing the sheriff and this plaintiff from selling said tion of the proceeds of said sales and mortgages | property on said execution; that the said supeused for such purposes, and that the same were rior court had theretofore acquired jurisdiction made for the purpose of enabling the said Otis over the subject matter of this action and th Sprague to defraud his creditors, and particularly parties thereto; that the said estate and the sail the plaintiff herein; that in pursuance of some executors are under the control of the said supesubsequent secret arrangement, not disclosed on rior court and subject to its orders, to the exten the county records and not known to the plaint of administering their trust with just regard to iff, the property described in said two deeds and the rights of all parties interested in the assets mortgages was, prior to the commencement of of said estate, the said federal court being without this action, turned over to the defendant, Provi jurisdiction in said matters; that by reason of dent Life & Trust Company, and ever since has | the conditions alleged the said one-fourth interbeen, and now is, held by said company under a est in said real estate will not sell for anything claim of full ownership thereof; that said prem near its value, and but for a small portion of ises are yielding a rental of about $700 per month, plaintiff's judgment, unless before such sale the and the same is being collected by said company, lien of plaintiff is adjudged valid, and that if said and all right of lien by reason of plaintiff's judg lien be adjudged valid the said one-fourth of said ment is denied by said defendant; that by reason premises will sell for much more than if sold of the said conveyances and the said mortgages under the present conditions; and that by reason and said secret arrangement, and the said claim of unpaid taxes, and the taxes accruing upon the of title to said premises and possession thereof said premises, and the depressed condition of by said defendant company, the plaintiff is ob values of property in Tacoma, the said one-fourth structed in the enforcement of his lien and the interest will not sell for sufficient to fully pay payment of his judgment; that there is no prop plaintiff's judgment, interest, and costs, and it is erty out of which to make payment of plaintiff's necessary that one-fourth of the rents of said judgment, other than that covered by said deeds premises be brought into court and preserved and mortgages, and described in the complaint for that purpose. To this complaint the Proviherein; that the executors, and especially Otis dent Life & Trust Company interposed a demurSprague, are insolvent and without property of rer upon the ground that it failed to 'state facts any kind, except the premises claimed and pos sufficient to constitute a cause of action against sessed by the defendant, Provident Life & Trust said defendant, which demurrer was sustained by Company; that Otis Sprague has been insolvent the court. The plaintiff elected to stand upon ever since the rendition of plaintiff's judgment, his complaint, and refused lo further plead; and and that execution was not issued on said judg thereupon the court dismissed his action, and ment prior to the year 1895, because the executors gave judgment against him for defendants' costs had possession and control of said premises, and and disbursements. The plaintiff appeals. were entitled to one year's time within wbich to The sole question for determination is, as we pay the debts and distribute the property of the have seen, whether the complaint, upon its face, estate; tbat at the time this action was com states facis sufficient to entitle the appellant to menced the said executors and the defendant, equitable relief. It is asserted in the brief of Provident Life & Trust Company, with intent to the appellant that the court below sustained the further obstruct and defeat the collection of demurrer to the complaint for the reason that, in plaintiff's judgment, were colluding together to | its opinion, creditors' bills have been abolished sell and convey the premises to an innocent pur in this state by force of our statutes in aid of exechaser, who, witbout knowledge of the fraudulent cutions on judgments at law. This statement is designs and purposes thereby intended, might disputed by the learned counsel for the respond. buy the premises, believing that he would get a ent, who claims that the demurrer was sustained clear title thereto, because of certain provisions because it appeared from the allegations of the in the will empowering the executors to sell complaint that appellant had an adequate remedy property of the estate for the payment of debts at law, and therefore did not need the aid of and legacies, in that a lis pendens was filed by equity. The record does not disclose upon which, plaintiff, giving notice of the commencement of if either, of these theories the learned court acted, this action, and describing the property involved but we are of the opinion that the judgment can

not be sustained upon either of the grounds sug- fraudulently conveyed or incumbered, so that, gested by counsel. This court has repeatedly although the property might still be sold on exeentertained actions to set aside fraudulent con. cution, it would not sell for an adequate price, veyances, and subject property so conveyed to and a suit is brought to clear away such convey. the satisfaction of judgments, and this is con ance or incumbrance. The law as laid down by ceded by counsel for the respondents. Nor does these text writers is in accordance with the overthe fact that a party may have a remedy at law whelming weight of authority. In fact, no decisnecessarily preclude him from invoking the aid ions announcing a contrary doctrine have been of equity in cases of this character. If the legal cited by counsel, and we have observed none. In remedy is inadequate to afford full relief, resort Cornell v. Radway, 22 Wis. 260, the court said: may be had to equity in proper cases. Indeed, “The existence of the (judgment] lien, without it is a well-established principle that equity has | adequate remedy for enforcing it at law, by concurrent jurisdiction with law over frauds, reason of the fraudulent or inequitable obstrucunder statutes relative to fraudulent conveyances. tion interposed by the defendant, is sufficient to Wait, Fraud. Conv. (2d Ed.) $ 51; Bump, Fraud. give a court of equity jurisdiction." And in Zoll Conv. (4th Ed.) $ 530. And the creditor bimself v. Soper, 75 Mo. 460, which was an act to subject may select the forum in which the question of land to the payment of a judgment, it was held fraud shall be determined, or, in other words, he that, while the creditor might have the land has the option to submit the determination of the sold on execution, equity will not compel him to question either to a court of law or a court of pursue that ruinous course." See, also, Freem. equity. “But,” says Mr. Bump, “the remedy most Judgm. (4th Ed.) $ 350; Pom. Eq. Jur. $ 1415, frequently used is a bill in equity, because a court and note; Black, Judgm. $ 423; Metzger v. Burof equity sifts the consciences of the parties and nett (Kan. App.) 48 Pac. Rep. 599, 4 Am. & Eng. removes the cloud from the title. Fraud consti Ency. Law (1st Ed.) 576; Taney v. O'Connell tutes the most ancient foundation of its jurisdic (Colo. Sup.), 27 Pac. Rep. 888. While it is true that tion, and is a sufficient ground for its interpo the appellant, if he had been permitted to do so, sition. It may grant relief, although there is might have sold the premises in controversy on ample remedy at law; for no relief is adequate execution in the first instance, it is equally true, except that which removes the fraudulent title. | under the authorities above cited, that he was The relief in equity is different and may be more not obliged to pursue that course. He had the beneficial than that given by the law." Bump, right, under the averments of the complaint, Fraud. Conv. (4th Ed.) $ 532. And in Wait on which are admitted to be true by the demurrer, Fraudulent Conveyances it is stated that “the ex to proceed in equity to bave the obstructions in istence of a remedy at law does not interfere with the way of execution removed. We are conthe right of a creditor to resort to a court of vinced that the complaint, viewed in the light of equity to secure a cancellation of a fraudulent the authorities, states a cause of action; and the conveyance, as an obstacle in the way of the full judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause reenforcement of a judgment, and a cloud on the manded, with directions to overrule the demurrer. title to the property sought to be reached. * * * The creditors' bill, or a suit to clear the fraudu

NOTE,--Right of Creditor to Maintain Creditors' lent transfer, is, for many reasons, entitled to

Bill to Set Aside Fraudulent Transfer of Debtor's

Property.-Where a debtor conveys his land in fraud preference as a means of relief. Should the cred

of creditor, the creditor may, at bis election, sue to itor attempt to sell the disputed property arbi

set aside the fraudulent deed and subject the land to trarily under execution, bidders would be de

the payment of the debt, or he may sell the land un. terred from purcbasing, lest they should buy a

der the execution before ascertaining the debtor's in. lawsuit; hence the market value of the land em terest therein, and then sue to set aside the fraudu. braced in the covinous transfer is practically de lent deed. Lionberger v. Baker, 88 Mo. 447; Ladd v. stroyed. Then the seizure of the property sub

Smith, 107 Ala. 506; Howland v. Knox, 59 Iowa, 46; jects the creditor to the peril incident to proving

Lynn v. Le Gerse, 48 Tex. 138. The latter remedy, that the transfer was fraudulent, and, in the

wbile the most dangerous and one pot generally to be

recommended, is sometimes advantageous and ad. event of failure to establish fraud, of paying

visable. As, for instance, where the proof of the damages for the unwarrantable interference, seiz

fraudulent conveyance is absolutely convincing so as ure and sale." Wait, Fraud. Conv. (2d Ed.) $60.

to practically leave no doubt of its being set aside-in In 5 Enc. Pl. & Prac. p. 402, the writer observes :

such case the possibility of buying a lawsuit deters "The remedy of the judgment creditor by a sale bidders and enables the creditor very often to pur: under execution of the premises fraudulently chase his debtor's interest at a sacrifice and reap conveyed does not affect the jurisdiction of equity, quite a substantial profit on the subsequent setting as the creditor has the right not only to have the

aside of the fraudulent conveyance. Shrewd com: property subjected to the payment of his judg

mercial lawyers appreciate their election of remedies

in cases of this character and are quick to see the ad ment, but to have it done in such a manner that

vantage of one mode of procedure over the other, in it will bring its fair market value." And on page

proportion as their case is doubtful or certain. In 392 of the same volume it is said that the most

either case, it affords quite a profitable speculation common instance of a creditors' bill is where to certain classes of investors, but bas been regretted property legally liable to execution has been by the courts for this very reason. In Lionberger V.

Baker, supra, after admitting that the creditor had veyed by the judgment debtor has a remedy by ejectthe election either by bill in equity to set aside the ment, and cannot, before obtaining possession, come fraudulent conveyance and then have the property into equity to secure a cancellation of the fraudulent sold to satisfy his debt, or by sale under execution to transfer. Smith's Executor V. Cockrell, 66 Ala. 64. sell the interest of his debtor in the property conveyed In Indiana a statute provides that any creditor of a and then have the fraudulent conveyance set aside, decedent whose claim shall have been filed and al. the court said: “It is to be regretted that the former lowed by the court, may file his petition showing the course is not more frequently pursued, and thereby insufficiency of the personal estate of the decedent to avoid the sacrifice of property and speculation attend. pay the liabilities, and that the deceased died owning ing such execution sales, of which this case is no ex. real estate liable to be made assets for the payment of ception; but the right of the creditor to do either is his debts, and praying an order requiring the execuwell established in this State.

tor or administrator to proceed to sell it for the pay. In most cases, however, where the creditor has no ment of such debts. Held, that such statute does not desire to speculate, the remedy at law by sale under prevent a creditor from maintaining an action to set execution is not adequate, and even if it were it would aside a fraudulent conveyance made by the decedent. not affect bis right to proceed by a creditors' bill in Battorff v. Cavert, 90 Ind. 508. In Massachusetts, equity to have the fraudulent conveyance set aside however, where an insolvent gives notes, without and the property subjected to the payment of his consideration, to persons aware of his insolvency, and judgment. Lathrop v. McBurney, 77 Ga. 815; Abbey procures bis property to be attached and seized on v. Commercial Bank, 31 Miss. 434; Gaines v. Exchange execution, a bill will not lie to vacate the judgment Bank, 64 Tex. 18; National Bank v. Hollerin, 31 Neb. and to set aside a levy theron, as § 96 of Pub. Stats. 558. In Martin v. Atchison, 2 Idaho, 590, the court held ch. 157, provides that when an insolvent with a view the creditor to have the right to proceed in equity to to give a preference procures his property to be at. enforce his claim against the debtor who has fraudu tached and seized on execution, the person to be lently conveyed his property, in spite of the fact that benefited thereby having reasonable cause to believe he bad a remedy at law by execution, and the court him insolveni, such transaction shall be void, and assigns as a reason for its holding that the remedy by the assignees may recover the value of the property sale under execution is not adequate, because no one from the person so benefited, furnishes a complete would purchase the property at anything over a nom remedy at law. Ames v. Sheehan, 161 Mass. 274. ipal sum, and the result would be that the creditor Proceedings in aid of execution do not furnish such would be compelled to buy in the property and then an adequate remedy at law as will preclude equitable bring an action to clear the cloud against the title. In interference to set aside a debtor's fraudulent conChambers v. Sallie, 29 Ark. 407, a debtor made a veyance. Scanlan v. Murphy, 51 Minn. 536; Klosterfraudulent conveyance and died, and a judgment man v. R. R., 8 Wash. 281; Faber v. Matz, 86 Wis. 370. creditor, having probated his claim, and had it al. In North Carolina, however, it was held that cred. lowed and classed in the third class, filed a bill in itors, electing to sell land fraudulently conveyed by chancery to have the conveyance set aside and the the judgment debtor, treating the conveyance as void land subjected to the payment of his claim. It was held under St. Eliz., cannot afterwards invoke the juris. that the court of chancery bad jurisdiction to set the diction of equity to set such conveyance aside, nor sale aside, and subject the property to the payment can the execution purchaser do so, since the relief of tbe debts, and might retaip its jurisdiction to settle already availed of is complete, Thigpen v. Pitt, 54 and dispose of the equitable rights of the parties. In

N. Car. 49. Decker v. Decker, 108 N. Y. 128, it was held that an These cases have been carefully selected to show action in the nature of a creditors' bill lies to reach the trend of the best considered authorities in up property in the hands of one who purchased it at an holding that ancient and effective remedy of execution sale, and holds it for the benefit of the

equity--the creditors' bill-in setting aside convey. debtor to defraud the creditors of the debtor. In ances in fraud of creditors and in enforcing payment Pierstoff y. Forges, 86 Wis. 128, it was held that a

of a judgment from land thus fraudulently conveyed. creditor might prosecute a bill to set aside a fraudulent conveyance, notwithstanding the fact that the property fraudulently conveyed still remained in the

JETSAM AND FLOTSAM. open possession of the debtor. In Lee v. Hollister, 5 Fed. Rep. 752, it was held that equity has jurisdiction

A BRIEF AGAINST THE UNANIMITY RULE. of a bill by a creditor to set aside conveyances made to Perhaps as terse an argument in favor of abolish. the debtor's wife in fraud of his creditors, and to ing the unanimity rule in jury trials so that verdicts subject the property to the payment of the creditors' may be rendered by a majority or other proportion claim; the remedy at law being neither plain nor ad. of the jury is the following by Judge A. B. Grace of equate. In Rozek v. Redzinski, 87 Wis. 525, it was Pine Bluff, Ark., reported by the American Lawyer. held tbat a judgment creditor who has obtained a Though not elegant, it certainly is forceful. He says: lien by levy of execution on his debtor's property has "In every relation of life in America where the result the right to maintain an equitable action to set aside is made to depend on the opinions and decision of a fraudulent claims of third persons on the property, number of persons the principle of majority rule has independent of Rev. Stats. $ 3186, providing that any. been adopted, with the sole exception of the verdict one having a lien on land shall have the same right to of a jury. A najority of one vote in each house of a maintain a suit to quiet title as the owner of the legal general assembly or the congress suffices to create, title.

repeal, or change a positive law, regardless of the Statutes expressly authorizing the sale of the prop. magnitude of the interests involved, as in the case of erty fraudulently conveyed, under an execution, do a currency bill, a tariff law, or a declaration of war. not oust equity of its jurisdiction. Cook v. Johnson A majority of the national senate ratifies or refuses 12 N. J. Eq.51; Chardavoyne v.Galbraith, 81 Ala. 521; to consent to a treaty with a foreign power. A ma. Scott v. Wagon Works, 48 Ind. 75. A purchaser at a jority of a single vote in half a million in a pivotal sheriff's sale, however, of lands fraudulently con. 'state may elect a president of the United States, change the entire policy of the government, and treatment of the testimony of witnesses. It is im. bring prosperty or ruin to seventy millions of people. portant, for example, to always quote a witness cor. And yet lawyers-good lawyers, honest and patriotic rectly when referring to bis evidence in cross-exam. lawyers-will roll their eyes in horror at the very ination or in summing up to a jury. suggestion that it would be sensible to apply the same principle in deciding a replevin suit for a While I do not favor too much technicality in this ‘ticky' calf or a pestle-tailed pony. And yet, again, regard, I consider it always prudent to object to lead. this very calf or pony case, when it has ascended by ing questions. The leading questions of coupsel who appeal from the justice of the peace to the circuit is “intoxicated by the exhuberance of his own vercourt, and thence to the supreme court of the state, bosity” is one of the most insidious and dangerous is decided by a bare majority of the judges, if they things to be apprehended from an adversary, and should happen to differ. In a capital case, if three should be promptly met by persistent objection. supreme judges vote to break the appellant's neck and two decide that he ought to go scot-free, the ac. It should be borne in mind that if you have to cused gentleman must suffer the inconvenience of be. subpæna a hostile witness to produce a book or docuing hanged until he is dead. So the Supreme Court ment, you may call him to the stand and ask for the of the United States if five learned gentlemen are of production of writings, without swearing him as a the opinion that an income tax, for instance, is un. witness. This is important as such evidence is only constitutional, and four other equally 'potent, grave, to be gotten from persons who are in many cases and reverend seigniors' think that it is not, the ma. friendly to, if not implicated with, the other side. jority of one prevails and the solemn act of the senate and house of representatives of the United States be. It would be proper to impress upon the most honcomes a nullity. So again, in bodies having purely est of witnesses that their impressions, not founded ministerial or executive functions, as in the case of upon recollection, as to what possibly or even prob. boards of directors of corporations, for example, the ably occurred, must be dismissed from the mind and majority rules, and the rights of the minority must the absolute memory only given in evidence on the give way to the will of the majority when lawfully direct. If the opposing counsel seeks to lead the expressed."

witness into the realms of surmise he may be safely EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.

followed, but it will never do to let him discover the The Hon. Joseph F. Daly, ex-justice of the Su.

witness there and drag him out as a terrible example preme Court of New York, writing for The Brief,"

of mendacity. makes, among others, the following suggestions for the examination of witnesses, which we have selected Experienced lawyers expect that even candid and as especially valuable:

respectable witnesses will be tempted to round out It injures a cause for counsel to find fault with his

their version of a transaction with matter of mere

surmise. The invented portions will of course own witness.

change with every repetition, the matters of pure The examination and cross.examination of wit. memory alone remaining the same. Counsel will, nesses develop the strength or weakness of the case. therefore, generally ask a witness to repeat on crossTo manage your own and your adversary's witnesses examination what has been given on the direct and with ease, grace and decorum should be the particular will easily distinguish by the change of words and study of counsel.

phrases where the imagination has come to the aid of Experienced cross-examiners humor the disposition

recollection in the details of a transaction. of witnesses to display superior knowledge of the matter at issue and a good deal besides, and they

One of the most skillful of our young trial lawyers, readily fall into the trap prepared for them by the

whose ability in cross-examination has been over and cross examiner with the encouraging manner.

over again developed, has an extraordipary faculty

for seizing upon a chance exaggeration by a hostile The calling of witnesses whom your adversary will witness and clinging to it with tenacity until the ad. be compelled to call ought to be avoided if possible,

mission of false bood is obtained. He will repeat his as the chances are that they may be unfriendly, and question, "Why did you say so and so?" or "It was it is better not to make them your own witnesses, not true, was it?" in spite of a dozen evasions unti since you may not then impeach them.

the witness has no recourse except to confess that h If I were asked what is the first qualification for a

or she had added what was not the fact to testimony good cross-examiner I should say, "an intimate

given under the solemnity of an oath. knowledge of human nature." To know its tendencies under certain conditions, its frailties and weaknesses, Cross examination may be compared to a sword is to have a dishonest or an imprudent witness at without a hilt. Unless it is handled carefully it may your mercy.

injure the one who uses it more than it hurts his ad

versary. Where counsel would test the accuracy or Incompetent and irrelevant testimony volunteered honesty of u witness by inquiring into a multitude of by a witness may be suffered until the full answer is circumstances, be must be careful lest this very out and then be stricken from the record by motion; process may elicit the most convincing corroboration but it is generally wise to let adverse witnesses talk of the witness' direct testimony and leave the counsel freely. More is to be gained by the chance of their in the sorry plight of having made his adversary's saying too much than by coercing them into keeping case stronger than it was before. It may be safely to strict rules.

said that unless counsel feel pretty sure of their

ground and know the case of the other side thoroughly Nothing, it is certain, is so fatal as a suspicion of it is better to be frugal in cross-examination and disingenuousness on the part of counsel, and no | confine questioning to the thorough exposure of where is it more distasteful to a jury than in the l palpable error or bias.


Since it is indispensable that witnesses should be thoroughly investigated before trial and their honesty and character put to the severest tests, it is a proper precaution to warn them not to be embarrassed by questions of the adversary as to whether they have talked with the counsel or with anybody about the testimony they were to give. Ignorant witnesses connect these questions with some imputation that they have been coached for examination, and in their fear to injure the cause for wbich they testify are apt to hesitate. It is surprising how successful this threadbare scheme for confusing witnesses proves to be in nine cases out of ten. It is generally counsel who, it may safely be inferred, confer most largely with their own witnesses who are prone to this kind of cross-examination, but it is a very easy and effective way of beginning a cross-examination, and is resorted to like a familiar opening in a game of chess. The only way to check your adversary is to warn your witnesses to answer frankly on the subject and never to be afraid to tell how often and to whom they have told the story they are telling on the stand.

OF ALL the Current Opinions of ALL the state and Territorial Courts of Last Resort, and of the Sapreme, Ciroatt and District Courts of tbo United States, except those that are Pablished in Full or Commented apon in our Notes of Im. portant Decisions and except those Opinions in which no Important Legal Principles are Dio. cassed of Interest to the Profession at Large.



......... 27, 40, 60, 61 IOWA.......

.......2, 4, 5, 11, 15, 18, 38, 44, 48, 50 KANSAS.. ..1, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 25, 28, 32, 33, 35, 36, 49, 56, 68 LOUISIANA...................

..................65 MAINE........

NE.........................................9, 17, 28, 29, 37 MICHIGAN......................

...................................... 46 MISSISSIPPI................................................57 MISSOURI....................

...........42, 55, 70 NEW HAMPSHIRE........... .............. 6, 10, 31, 34, 66, 67 NORTH DAKOTA..........

..................14, 47, 54 PENNSYLVANIA...... ..................21, 22, 24, 30, 63 RHODE ISLAND.... TEXAS.................

...... 39, 42, 43, 45, 51, 59, 64, 69 UNITED STATES C.

...........58 UNITED STATES D. C..

.......52 UTAH..... WASHINGTON..

...... 26 WISCONSIN..

.... 19, 20




EDITION. The first edition of this valuable work was published in 1898, since which many changes have been made in the tax law. The special franchise tax law was enacted in 1899; some important decisions have been rendered by the courts in the enforcement of this law which are cited in the work. Since the pub. lication of the first edition many cases have been decided relating to the provisions of the tax law. The book contains forms for lawyers, assessors, collectors and other officers. The author is H. Noyes Greene, of the Troy bar, author of "Law of Taxable Trans. fers," "Practice Time Table," "Law of Negotiable Instruments," "Highway Law, etc." There is also added to the book a very valuable chapter on the Powers and Duties of Assessors, by J. Newton Sierro, council for the state board of tax commis. sioners, author of special actions and special proceedings. The book contains 365 pages, 8vo., bound in law sheep. Published by Matthew Bender, Albany, N. Y.

HUMORS OF THE LAW. "Taking into consideration the things Sharp has had to contend against, I think his success as a lawyer has been remarkable."

"Why, what did he ever have to contend against ?”

"Everything. He came of a wealthy family. He didn't bave to work his way through college. He never studied by the light of a pine torch, never had to drive dray, never walked six miles to school, and wasn't compelled to borrow his books. He had every possible facility, and yet he has done well from the very start."

1. ATTACHMENT-Action on Bond-Limitations.--An action to recover damages upon an attachment bond is an action on a written contract, and is not barred until the expiration of five years from the time the right of action accrues.-BAKER V. SKINNER, Kan., 64 Pac. Rep. 981.

2. BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATIONS-Actions for BenefitsConditions-Burden of Proof.- Where an action is brought by a member of a brotherhood order against the order for indemnity for disability, the constitu. tion of which order provides that the same shall be paid to disabled members in good standing, failure of guch member to prove his good standing will not defeat his claim, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, since the burden of proof is on defendant to show that plaintiff was not in good standing.-LILLIK V. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY TRAINMEN, Iowa, 86 N. W. Rep. 279.

3. BILLS AND NOTES-Guarantor-Notice of Dis. honor.-One who guaranties the payment of a note is not entitled to notice of dishonor, to which an ordi. nary indorser of a negotiable paper is entitled.-FARRER V. PEOPLE'S TRUST CO., Kap., 64 Pac. Rep. 1031.

4. BILLS AND NOTES-Indorsement in Blank-Notice of Protest.-Code, $ 3049, provides tbat the blank in. dorsement of an instrument by a person not the payee, indorsee, or assignee thereof shall be a guarai the contract, and that the guarantor is chargeable without notice if he has received no detriment from the want thereof. Plaintiff brought action on notes Indorsed in blank by the makers against the guar. antors, who were strangers thereto, alleging that no protest had been made, but that defendants had received no detriment thereby, because the makers and payees were insolvent. Defendants demurred on the ground that there was no protest as provided by law. Held, that no notice was required to fix defendants' liability, since their demurrer admitted plaintiff's allegation that there was no detriment.-GRIER V. IRWIN, Iowa, 86 N. W. Rep. 273.

5. BOUNDARY-Division Fence.- Where a division fence between adjoining owners has stood for over 10 years, each party claiming to own up to it, an agree ment to make it the true boundary will be implied.KULAS V. McHugh, Iowa, 86 N. W. Rep. 288.

An Atebison girl taught school for a living and found it bard to buy bread and shirt waists on $40 a month. One night the fire bells rang, and she ran to the tire, and was introduced there to a man getting $200 a month, with no kin inou mbrances, who mar. ried her. Since then, every time the fire bells ring, the women throw their aprons over their heads, and run, but no more $200 a month men have been picked up.

« ПредишнаНапред »