Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

First National Bank v. Wisdom's Executors (Ky) Bills

and Notes-Proof of Other Forgeries to Establish

Forgery of Note Sued on, R. D. 324.
Fishery. McDaniel (Wyo.) Contempt-Bribing Wit.

ness-Power of Court to Punish, ann. case, 109.
Foote v. Nickerson (N. H.) Husband and Wife-Agree.

ment for Separation-Liability, ann. case, 146.
French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. (U. S. S. C.) Spe-

cial Taxation of Abutting Property for Street Im.
provements an Infringement of Property Rights,

Ed. 261.
Gambrill v. Schooley (Md.) Libel and Slander-Publi.

cation, ann. case, 29.
Gorman v. Budlong(R. I.) Unborn Child-Right of

Action for Wrongful Death, R. D. 382.
Graves v. Johnson (Mass.) Intoxicating Liquors-Un-

lawful Resale, R. D. 182.
Greene v. Bank of Camas Prairie (Idaho) Banks and

Banking-Deposit in Name of Another, R. D. 162.
Guethler v. Altman (Ind.) Maliciously Injuring Trade

of Another by Threats or Inducements. Ed. 101.
Hale, In re (U. S. D. C., E. D. N. Car.) Bankruptcy-

Discharge of Individual Partners in Partnership

Proceedings, R. D. 42.
Harlan y. Central Phosphate Company (Tenn.) Mutual

Mistake of Law, R. D. 22.
Harris v. Manufacturing Co. (Miss.) Judgment-Equi.

table Assignment, R. D. 883.
Harrold v. Plenty (English) Deposit of Share Certifi.

cates-Right of Foreclosure, R. D. 2.
Henderson-Achert Lithographic Co. v. John Shillito

Co. (Ohio) Sureties-Contract of Indemnity, R. D.

141.
Henry v. Vance (Ky.) Attorney and Client-Contin.

gent Feeg-Unconscionable Percentage and Right

of Client to Discbarge Attorney, R. D. 882.
Hildenbrandt v. Ames (Tex.) Proof of Survivorship

in a Common Disaster, Ed. 401.
Hinzar v. State (Tex.) Criminal Trial-Improper Re.

marks of Trial Judge, R. D. 402.
Hires v. Hires (N. J.) Abstention by a Husband from

the Exercise of His Marital Rights Constituting

Matrimonial Desertion, Ed. 41.
Hollenbeck v. Ristine (Iowa) Master and Servant-

Malicious Interference of Third Pergon Resulting

in Discharge of Servant, Ed. 381.
Holt v. Thurman (Ky.) Assignment of Unearned Sal.

ary, R. D. 382.
Horn v. Boise City Canal Co. (Idaho) Personal Injuries

-Damages-Mental Suffering, ann. case, 468.
Hoskins v. Ames (Miss.) Remainders-Sale by Parent

as Life Tenant for Reinvestment, R. D. 383.
Hubachek v. Hazzard (Minn.) Factors and Brokers-

Rights of Real Estate Broker to Commission, R.

D. 342.
Hurd v. New York Laundry Co. (N. Y.) Corporations-

Sale of Assets-Rights of Creditors,"R. D. 223.
Hurley v. Eddingfield (Ind.) Physicians-Fallure to

Answer Call, R. D. 102.
Iowa and Callfornia Land Co. v. Hoag (Oal.) Right of

Receiver to Sue in Foreign Jurisdiction, Ed. 201.
Jones v. Oon (Oreg.) Waters and Water Courses-

Irrigation-Riparian Land, ann. case, 128.
Kansas Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Pinson (Tex.)

Life Insurance-Misrepresentations and Warran.

ties, R. D. 402.
Kilton v. Providence Tool Co. (R. I.) Corporations-

Limitation of Actions against Stockholders, R. D.

43.
Kilton v. Providence Tool Co. (R. 1.) Penal Statutes--

Limitations-Stockholders' Liability, R. D. 165.
Kleppner v. Lemon (Pa.) Real Property-Drainage of

011 Lands-Damages, R. D. 122.

Lamb v. Littman (N. Car.) Master and Servant-Lia.

bility for Acts of Master of Ill. Tempered Overseer,

R. D. 262.
Landry V. Andrews (R. I.) Bankruptcy-Payment of

Money as a Preference, R. D. 283.
La Republique Francaise v. Saratoga Vichy Springs

Co. (U. 8. C. 0. of App.) Geographical Names as

Trade Labels, Ed. 101.
Latta v. Lonsdale (U. 8. C. C. of App.) Attorney's Fees

as Preferred Claims, R. D. 82.
Lellyett v. Brooks (Tenn.) Corporations-Cancella-

tion of stock Subscription-Rights of Receiver, R.

D. 244.
Line v. McCall (Mich.) Judgment-Assignment of Part

of Judgment, R. D. 244.
Louisville and Nashville Ry. Co. v. Fitzpatrick (Ala.)

Railroads-Action for Killing Dog, R. D. 243.
Lynn v. Moss (Ky.) Oommon-Law Doctrine of Mainte-

nance still in Force Independent of Statutory En.

actment, Ed. 41.
McVelgh v. State (Tex.) Criminal Evidence-Oonfes.

siong-Inducements and Promises, ann. case, 90.
Mankey v. Railway Co. (S. Dak.) Railroads--Liability

for Not Ringing Bells, R. D. 243.
Marshall v. Mahorney (Ky.) Homestead-Failure of

Debtor to Occupy Land Until After Execution was

Levied, R. D. 362.
Martin v. Meles (Mass.) Contract-Executory Consid.

eration, ann, case, 211.
Minnesota Stoneware Co. v. McCrossen (Wis.) Home.

stead-Change of Residence, R. D. 22.
Mohn y. Langan (Mo.) Liability of Warehouseman for

Goods Held in Custodia Legis Under Writ of Re.

plevin, R. D. 423.
Moore v. Parker (Kab.) Landlord and Tenant-Lia.

bility of Landlord for Detective Premises, R. D.

246.
National Fire Insurance Oo. V. Fitzgerald (Neb.)

Mortgages-Right of Mortgagee to Foreclose Alter

Death of Mortgagor, R. D. 242..
Niagara Fire Insurance Co. v. Cornell (U. 8. C. C.,

Neb.) Fire Insurance--Constitutionality of Anti-

compact Laws, R. D. 308.
North western Lumber Co. v. Chehalis County (Wash.)

Taxation-Right of State to Tay Vessels Registered
in Foreign Port, but Operating in the Taxing State,

R. D. 282.
Northwestern Tel. Ex. Co. iv. City of Minneapolis

(Minn.) Telephone Companies-Erection of Poles

and Wires-Subsurface Conduits, ann. case, 232.
Palmer v. Alexander (Mo.) Partition-Title and Inter.

est Conveyed by Voluntary Deeds in Partition, R.

D. 322.
Parker v.Qulon (Utah) Taxation-Exemption of Prop.

erty Used Partly for Religious Services and Partly

as a source of Revenue, R. D. 183.
Payne v. Terre Haute & I. R. Co. (Ind.) Carriers-Per.

sonal Injuries-Free Pass-Release-Effect-Negli.

gence, ann. case, 252.
People v. Feitner (N. Y.) Taxation-Seat in the New

York Stock Exchange as Personalty, R. D. 102.
People v. Reetz (Mich.) The Licensing of Physicians

as a Vallu Exercise of the Police Power, Ed. 361.
Powell v. Sherwood (Mo.) Receivers-Railroads-Lia.

ble as Common Carrier, R. D. 362.
Price v. First Nat. Bank of Atchison (Kan.) Contract-

Consideration-Forbearance, ann, case, 7.
Quinn v. Leatham (Englisb) Unfair Trade-Maliciously

Inducing One's Customers to Quit Trading With

Him, R. D. 302.
Reitechneider, In re (N. Y.) Attorneys-Unprofessional

Conduct, Ed. 181.
Rex v. Smith (English) Criminal Evidence-Dying

Declarations, R. D. 123.

Rex v. Tibbits and Windust (English) Publication of

Judicial Proceedings Constituting Contempt of

Court, Ed. 161.

Richardson v. Mining Company (Utah) Mining Corpo.

rations- Value of Property Taken in Payment of

Capital Stock, R. D. 343.

Saranac Railroad Co. V. Arnold (N. Y.) Corporations-

Majority Stockholders as Trustees, R. D. 42.

Saulsbury v. State (Tex.) Constitutional Law-Inter.

state Commerce-State Tax on Peddlers and Drum.

mers, R. D. 324.

Schroeder v. Boyce (Mich.) !Action on Foreign Judg.

ment-Proof of Laws Allowing Interest on Judg.

ments in Foreign State, R. D. 402.

Selous, In re (English) Trusts-Merger of Legal and

Equitable Estate, R. D. 262.

Smith v. St. Louis & Southwestern Railway Company

of Texas (U. S.S. C.) Quarantine - Exclusion of

Animals from Other State-Regulation of Com-
merce, ann. case, 288.
Southern Railway Company v. Local Union (U. S. D.

C., Tenn.) Statutes-Contemporaneous Construc-

tion, R. D. 303.
Southern Railway Co. v. Machinists' Union (U.S. D.

C., Tenn.) Injunctions-Right to Enjoin Violation

of Personal and Property Rights, Ed. 301.

Stafford v. Chippewa Valley Electric Railway Com.

pany (Wis) Municipal Ordinance-Must be Rea.

sonable, R. D. 23.
Staples v. Rossi (Idaho) Injunctions-Right to Injunc.

tion Where There is a Remedy at Law. R. D. 342.

State F. Baum (N. Car.) Water and Water Courses-

Unlawful Obstruction - Navigable Stream, ann.

case, 347.

State v. Bixman (Mo.) Constitutionality of Statutes

Authorizing the Inspection of Malt Liquors, Ed. 81.
State v. Crescent Creamery Co. (Minn.) Sumptuary

Legislation Under Gurse of Police Power, Ed. 221.
State v. Miller (Mo.) Husband and Wife-Liability of

Husband for Crime of the Wife, R. D. 323.
State v. Stork (Kan.) Common Nuisance-Abatement

-Change of Venue-Misdemeanor, ann, case, 485,
State Board of Health v. Roy (R. I.) Constitutional

Law-Physician's License - Revocation by State

Board, R. D. 3.
Steers Lumber Co. In re (U. S. D. C., E. D. New York)

Bankruptcy-Limitation of Time Prior to Bank
ruptcy in which a Payment May be considered a
Preference, R. D. 263.

Stout v. Rigney (U. 8. 0. C. of App.) Adverse Posses-

slon of Grantee Under Forclosure Sale, R. D. 82.

Strauss v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association (N.

Car.) Mutual Benefit A980ciationg-Change of By.

Lawg-Consent of Member-Recovery of Premises

-Mandamus, ann. cage, 390.

Trott v. Chicago, R. I. & Pacific Railway Co. (Iowa)

Life Tables as Evidence, R. D. 42.

Tyler v. Moody (Ky.) Warrants-Measures of Damages

for Breach-Acetylene Gas, R. D. 422.

Vann v. Edwards (N. Car.) Husband and Wife-Effect

of Married Women's Acts on Wife's Contracts, R.

• D. 441. .

Wabash Railroad Co. v. Lintop (Ind.) Master and Serv.

ant-Scope of Servant's Employment, R. D. 82.

Walker v. Houghteling (U.S. C.C. of App.) Husband

and Wife-"Family Expense Statutes"-Lease, R.

D. 222.

Western Union v. Hendricks (Tex.) Liability of Tele-

graph Companies for Improper Delivery of Mes.

sages, Ed. 401.
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Call Publishing Co.

(U. S. $. C.) Federal Common Law, R. D. 44.
Whitebread & Co. v. Watt (English) A Purchaser's

Lien for Deposit, R. D. 460.
White v. City of Tacoma (U. S. C, C., W. D. Wash.)

Validity of Assessments for Street Improvements

When in Substantial Excess of Benefits, Ed. 281.

White v. Edmond (English) Married Woman-Pre-

sumption-Past Child Bearing-Widow of 56 Who

Has Had a Child, R. D. 202.

Whitworth v. Railroad (U. S. D. C. Ky.) Jurisdiction

of Federal Courts-Removal of Causes, R. D. 103.

Wilson v. Jordan (Misg.) Gifts Causa Mortis and Inter

Vivos, R. D. 121.
Wisdom y. State (Tex.) Criminal Evidence-Testimony

and Confessions Before the Grand Jury, R. D. 164.
Withers v. Edwards (Tex.) Corporations-Right of

Stockholders to Combine to Control the Corpora-

tion, R. D, 163.
Wood v. Garrison (Ky.) Landlord and Tenant-

“Cropperg"-Failure of Tenant to comply with

Contract, R. D. 302
Wooten v. Interstate Building & Loan Association

(Ga.) Corporations-Limitation on the Right to

Amend By Laws, R. D. 83.
Wygant v. McLaughlan (Oreg.) Police Power-Burial

in City Limita, ann. case 48.

[ocr errors]

Central Law Journal.

bas actually received a preference, by a par. tial payment of his debt, within four montbs

before the bankruptcy of the debtor, cappot ST. LOUIS, MO., JULY 5, 1901. bave his claims allowed against the estate of

the bankrupt without surrendering the pref. Mr. E. C. Brandenburg, in cbarge of

erence; and this notwithstanding the fact bankruptcy matters at Washington, in his

that he received the payment innocently, and report of November, 1900, to which we gave

that he had no knowledge or cause to believe extended editorial mention in our issue of

that the debtor was insolvent or that a pref. November 30, 1900, stated that the only sec

erence was intended. Although four jus. tion of the Bankrupt Act of 1898 that

tices dissented. we fail to see on wbat ground as construed by the courts was meeting

objection can be made to this construction with almost universal disapproval was

of these sections, unless it be the oft-asserted section 57g referring to the construction

ground of expediency, that it will “barass put upon that section by the decision in the

and embarrass the business of the country.” case of In re Fixen, 51 Cent. L. J. 359, in

Wbile we believe the fear thus expressed to which it was held that a payment made on

be more imaginary tban real, still, even if account by an insolvent debtor, in the ordi

otherwise, congress alone bas power to grant nary course of business, within four months

relief. It is only in cases of the most apparprior to his adjudication in bankruptcy, con:

ent absurdity that a judicial tribunal is perstitutes a preference under the bankrupt act,

mitted to disregard the ordinary meaning of and must be surrendered by the creditor in

the plain terms of the instrument under conorder to entitle bim to participate in the as

sideration. This rule was expressed in no sets of the bankrupt estate. This decision

uncertain terms in the case of Sturgis v. aroused widespread criticism among certain

Crowninsbield, 4 Wheat. 202: “If in business interests, but we asserted our belief

any case, the plain meaning of a provisat the time the decision was rendered that any

ion, not contradicted by any other criticism of the construction thus put upon

provision in the same instrument, is to be this section was quite unwarranted, it

disregarded, because we believe the framers being clearly the only logical construction

of that instrument could not intend wbat that could be placed on the plain wording of

they say, it must be one in which the absurdity that much disputed section. Naturally we

and injustice of applying the provision to ibe have awaited with much interest the opin.

case would be so monstrous that all mankind ion of the supreme court on this most im

would, without hesitation, unite in rejecting portant question which was handed down the application.” May 27, 1901, in the case of Carson, Pirie, The rule relating to preferences inay be Scott & Co. v. Chicago Title & Trust Com | therefore succinctly stated as follows: A pany. The court expressly sustained the preference is any transfer of property, indecision of Justice Morrow in the case of In cluding payment in money made by the re Fixen, and held that a payment of a debt debtor wbile insolvent, and which has the in money is a transfer of property within the effect of giving one creditor a greater per. purview of Bankruptcy Act 1898, sec. 60a, centage of his debt than any other creditor providing that a debtor shall be deemed to of the same class. If a preference is given have given a preference, if, being insolvent, within four months preceding bankruptcy, be bas made a transfer of any of his prop. and the creditor bas cause to believe tbat a erty, and the effect of the enforcement of preference was intended, such preference is such transfer will be to enable one of his | void and recoverable by the trustee. If the creditors to obtain a grealer percentage of creditor is not aware of his debtor's insolve his debt than other creditors of the same ency, and receives a payment on account in class. The court further held that under the ordinary course of business wiibout section 57g, providing that the claims of | knowledge that a preference was intended, creditors of a bankrupt who have received such payment is, nevertheless, a preference, preferences shall not be allowed unless they but the law favors the innocence of the surrender their preferences, a creditor who' creditor in such case by giving him the option of retaining the preference and not partici $65,000,000, proposed to issue $45,000,000 addipating in the estate, or of surrendering the

tienal stock for property of a competing com

pany. There was evidence tbat the property was preference and sharing equally with other

not worth $10,000,000, but the 'business of the creditors in the distribution of the assets.

company sought to be amalgamated was prosperThus, if' the payment constituting the 0118, and the company possessed a world-wide preference gives him a larger percentage and valuable reputation. Held, that the copso)than otber creditors, that is his advan

idation would not be enjoined at the suit of it tage and he may keep it; if the percent.

stockbolder, since the evidence did not sbow that

the directors were knowingly about to purchase age gained by the preference is smaller than

the plants at an excessive valuation. The court that he would obtain by participating in tbe said: “The fraud referred to in the forty-nintb bankrupt estate, he may surrender bis pref section is fraud upon the law; and in the words of erence and prove up his claim along with

Allen, J., in Douglas v. Ireland, supra, po other

fraudulent intent must be proved “than that olber creditors.

which is evidenced by the act of knowingly is. One question is yet undecided. Is the time

suing stock for property in excess of its value.' limit of four months provided for in section It must be remembered, however, tbat a wide 60b in regard to preferences which may be re discretion in the matter of valuation, as in otber covered by the trustee applicable also to

matters, iş copfided to directors. As long as

•tbey act in good faith, with honest motives, for sections 60a and 57g in regard to preferences

honest ends,' tbe exercise of their discretion will which must be surrendered to entitle the

not be interfered with. Given bona fides, and the creditor to participate in the estate of the court will not put its opinion as to values against bankrupt? In section 60: no limit is set to theirs. The test will be conscious overvaluation, when a payment may be a preference, except

and not ill-advised action." t.be insolvency of the debtor. It would there

DEPOSIT OF SHARE CERTIFICATES — Right fore seem that the decision in the case of In

OF FORECLOSURE. — Full as the books are of re Jones, reported in 4 Am. B. R. 563, and

cases on the remedies of mortgagees, the subject holding that section 57g compels a surrender

is frequently raising new points for judicial deof a preferential payment of money, even cision. In the recent case of Harrold y. Plenty thougb received more than four montbs prior (Times, 23d ult.). reported in the latest issue to bankruptcy, as a condition precedent to

of the Solicitor's Journal, Cozens-Hardv, J.,

has held tbat a deposit of a share cersbaring in the assets, is the only logical de.

tificate by way of security without writing duction to be drawn from the plain wording

gives to the depositee a right of foreclosure of these sections and the construction put 1 as well as a right of realizing the security upon them by the supreme court. Tbe by sale. That the right of sale is incident to such question of expediency under such con

| a security there is no doubt, and, as appears from

the recent case of Deverges v. Sandeman, Clark struction becomes even more vital tban

& Co., 49 W. R. 167, there is no necessity to go to before, but it is one for congress and not tbe

the court to enforce it. The depositee of sbares judiciary to determine.

of a fluctuating nature is entitled, after due notice

to the depositor, to sell them even though no exNOTES OF IMPORTANT DECISIONS press power of sale bas been conferred upon him.

But to obtain a right to foreclosure there must be CORPORATIONS-ISSUE OF STOCK FOR PROP a deposit under such circumstances as to raise an ERTY.-One of the most important provisions of inference of an agreement to execute a legal the Revised Corporation Act of New Jersey has mortgage. Strictly speaking, foreclosure supjust been construed by the Court of Cbapcery of poses that there bas been a transfer of tbe legal that State in the case of Donaldo v. American estate, and the effect of foreclosure is simply to Simelting and Refining Co., 48 Atl. Rep. 786, extinguish the rigbt of redemption which equity which illustrates tbe liberal policy wbich cbar allows to the mortgagor. "The principle upon acterizes not only the legislative department, but wbich the court acts,''said Jessel, M. R., in Carter likewise tbe judiciary of that State in their atti. v. Wake, 4 Ch. D. p. 606, “is that in a regular tude toward corporations. The Revision of the legal mortgage there bas been an actual conveyNew Jersey Statutes of 1896 provides tbat any ance of the legal ownership, and then ibe court corporation formed under the act may purchase bas interfered to prevent that from having its full property and issue stock to the amount of the effect, and when the ground of interference is value of the property, and in the absence of gone by the non-payment of the debt, the court actual fraud, the judgment of the directors as to simply removes the stop it bas itself put on." the value of the property purebased shall be And it is tbe same wbere there is an express or conclusive. A corporation, capitalized for ' implied agreement to execute a legal mortgage.

« ПредишнаНапред »