« ПредишнаНапред »
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.
ness-Power of Court to Punish, ann. case, 109.
ment for Separation-Liability, ann. case, 146.
cial Taxation of Abutting Property for Street Im.
cation, ann. case, 29.
Action for Wrongful Death, R. D. 382.
lawful Resale, R. D. 182.
Banking-Deposit in Name of Another, R. D. 162.
of Another by Threats or Inducements. Ed. 101.
Discharge of Individual Partners in Partnership
Proceedings, R. D. 42.
Mistake of Law, R. D. 22.
table Assignment, R. D. 883.
cates-Right of Foreclosure, R. D. 2.
Co. (Ohio) Sureties-Contract of Indemnity, R. D.
gent Feeg-Unconscionable Percentage and Right
of Client to Discbarge Attorney, R. D. 882.
in a Common Disaster, Ed. 401.
marks of Trial Judge, R. D. 402.
the Exercise of His Marital Rights Constituting
Matrimonial Desertion, Ed. 41.
Malicious Interference of Third Pergon Resulting
in Discharge of Servant, Ed. 381.
ary, R. D. 382.
-Damages-Mental Suffering, ann. case, 468.
as Life Tenant for Reinvestment, R. D. 383.
Rights of Real Estate Broker to Commission, R.
Sale of Assets-Rights of Creditors,"R. D. 223.
Answer Call, R. D. 102.
Receiver to Sue in Foreign Jurisdiction, Ed. 201.
Irrigation-Riparian Land, ann. case, 128.
Life Insurance-Misrepresentations and Warran.
ties, R. D. 402.
Limitation of Actions against Stockholders, R. D.
Limitations-Stockholders' Liability, R. D. 165.
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.
Money as a Preference, R. D. 283.
Co. (U. 8. C. 0. of App.) Geographical Names as
Trade Labels, Ed. 101.
as Preferred Claims, R. D. 82.
tion of stock Subscription-Rights of Receiver, R.
of Judgment, R. D. 244.
Railroads-Action for Killing Dog, R. D. 243.
nance still in Force Independent of Statutory En.
actment, Ed. 41.
siong-Inducements and Promises, ann. case, 90.
for Not Ringing Bells, R. D. 243.
Debtor to Occupy Land Until After Execution was
Levied, R. D. 362.
eration, ann, case, 211.
stead-Change of Residence, R. D. 22.
Goods Held in Custodia Legis Under Writ of Re.
plevin, R. D. 423.
bility of Landlord for Detective Premises, R. D.
Mortgages-Right of Mortgagee to Foreclose Alter
Death of Mortgagor, R. D. 242..
Neb.) Fire Insurance--Constitutionality of Anti-
compact Laws, R. D. 308.
Taxation-Right of State to Tay Vessels Registered
R. D. 282.
(Minn.) Telephone Companies-Erection of Poles
and Wires-Subsurface Conduits, ann. case, 232.
est Conveyed by Voluntary Deeds in Partition, R.
erty Used Partly for Religious Services and Partly
as a source of Revenue, R. D. 183.
sonal Injuries-Free Pass-Release-Effect-Negli.
gence, ann. case, 252.
York Stock Exchange as Personalty, R. D. 102.
as a Vallu Exercise of the Police Power, Ed. 361.
ble as Common Carrier, R. D. 362.
Consideration-Forbearance, ann, case, 7.
Inducing One's Customers to Quit Trading With
Him, R. D. 302.
Conduct, Ed. 181.
Declarations, R. D. 123.
Animals from Other State-Regulation of Com-
C., Tenn.) Statutes-Contemporaneous Construc-
tion, R. D. 303.
C., Tenn.) Injunctions-Right to Enjoin Violation
of Personal and Property Rights, Ed. 301.
sonable, R. D. 23.
tion Where There is a Remedy at Law. R. D. 342.
State v. Bixman (Mo.) Constitutionality of Statutes
Authorizing the Inspection of Malt Liquors, Ed. 81.
Legislation Under Gurse of Police Power, Ed. 221.
Husband for Crime of the Wife, R. D. 323.
-Change of Venue-Misdemeanor, ann, case, 485,
Law-Physician's License - Revocation by State
Board, R. D. 3.
Bankruptcy-Limitation of Time Prior to Bank
Western Union v. Hendricks (Tex.) Liability of Tele-
graph Companies for Improper Delivery of Mes.
sages, Ed. 401.
(U. S. $. C.) Federal Common Law, R. D. 44.
Lien for Deposit, R. D. 460.
White v. Edmond (English) Married Woman-Pre-
sumption-Past Child Bearing-Widow of 56 Who
Has Had a Child, R. D. 202.
Wilson v. Jordan (Misg.) Gifts Causa Mortis and Inter
Vivos, R. D. 121.
and Confessions Before the Grand Jury, R. D. 164.
Stockholders to Combine to Control the Corpora-
tion, R. D, 163.
“Cropperg"-Failure of Tenant to comply with
Contract, R. D. 302
(Ga.) Corporations-Limitation on the Right to
Amend By Laws, R. D. 83.
in City Limita, ann. case 48.
By G. C. Hamilton, 4.
H. Robbins, 184.
Chas. W. McKinney, 207.
No. 14. Duty of Wife to Follow Domicile oj
Inhibit State Laws Limiting Hours of Pri-
Change in Contract of Insurance Between a
No. 23. The Chicago Smoke Nuisance as a
Regulation of Interstate Commerce. By
Flora V. Woodward Tibbits, 143.
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.