Графични страници
PDF файл

to be a very good reason for its admission. , of authority or defective title cannot be In discussing this subject, Wigmore, in his shown by a mere verified denial, but only by work on Evidence (volume 3, & 1960), says: evidence. Ordinarily this may be true, but

"If a witness, in the course of his testimony, the Civil Code (section 110 [Gen. St. 1909, $ comes to mention that A. 'possessed' or B. 5703]) expressly provides that allegations of owned' or C. was 'agent,' let him not be made the execution of written instruments and indumb under the law, and be compelled by evasions and circumlocutions to attain the simple dorsements thereon shall be taken as true object of expressing his natural thought. If unless the denial of the same be verified by there is a real dispute as to the net effect of the the affidavit of the party, his agent or attorfacts, these may be brought out in detail on

ney. Such verified denial is held to put in cross-examination." Section 1960.

issue the execution of such instrument or inThe sense and reason of the matter, as dorsement and as a matter of practice places well as the authorities cited, impel to the on the plaintiff the burden of proving such conclusion that it would have been proper indorsement. Threshing Machine

Co. v. to permit officers of the bank to state on their Peterson, 51 Kan. 713, 33 Pac. 470; Kurth examination in chief who was the owner and v. Bank, 77 Kan. 475, 94 Pac. 798, 15 L. R. holder of the note. No criticism whatever A. (N. S.) 612, 127 Am. St. Rep. 428; White of the ruling is imputed or implied, for the v. Smith, 79 Kan. 96, page 101, 98 Pac. 760. trial court's decision was not in conflict with

The court instructed that the burden of previous holdings of this court. No prejudice proof was upon the plaintiff to show that it resulted in this case, as later the circum- was the owner of the note and gave value for stances under which the bank took the note it before maturity, and that the "note was were quite fully shown, and the note itself duly indorsed to the plaintiff by the Midwas introduced in evidence.

Continent Loan Company or by some one No error appears in receiving evidence of duly and properly authorized by said comstatements made by the assumed agent, nor pany to transfer, sell, and indorse the note in admitting testimony offered by the defend- in question to the plaintiff.” The quoted porants.

tion correctly stated the law, and, regardless [3] While numerous errors are urged re- of any other alleged errors in the charge, the garding the instructions, it is not necessary jury could not find for the plaintiff without to consider them because of a fatal defect in proof of the agent's authority. the plaintiff's proof which precluded a recov- The judgment is affirmed. All the Justices ery in any event. There was no way to pass concurring. title by indorsement unless the agent who attempted so to do was thereunto authorized.

(45 Okl. 115) 3 R. C. L. p. 1101; Sparks v. Dispatch Trans- WELLS FARGO & CO. EXPRESS et al. v. fer Co., 104 Mo. 531, 15 S. W. 417, 12 L, R. A.

STATE. (No. 5358.) 714, 24 Am. St. Rep. 315. There is no evi- (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Oct. 13, 1914. dence of such authority, except certain state- Rehearing Denied Dec. 22, 1914.) ments made by him, which, of course, were

(Syllabus by the Court.) not sufficient. Fence-Machine Co. v. Highley- CARRIERS ($ 10*)—CORPORATION COMMISSIONman, 71 Kan, 347, 80 Pac. 568. There is

APPEAL – SUSPENSION BOND - CONVICTION some evidence that he had authority to take ON PAYMENT OF EXCESS CHARGES. notes for the company, but none that he was the Corporation Commission to give an addi

Where an express company is required by empowered to negotiate them.

tional suspending bond, pending an appeal from Section 30 of the Negotiable Instruments an order of the Corporation Commission preAct (Gen. Stat. 1909, § 5276) provides that:

scribing rates, rules, and regulations applicable

to intrastate express business, under Act Feb. "Where a signature is forged or made without 10, 1913 (Laws 1913, c. 10), the Commission has authority of the person whose signature it pur- the right to require such" suspending bond to ports to be, it is wholly inoperative, and no be conditioned that the express company will right to retain the instrument, or to give a dis- pay to the Commission, for distribution by the charge therefor, or to enforce payment thereof Commission to the parties entitled thereto, all against any party thereto, can be acquired charges which the express company may collect through or under such signature, unless the or receive, pending said appeal, in excess of party against whom it is sought to enforce such those fixed or authorized by the final decision right is precluded from setting up the forgery of the Supreme Court. or want of authority.” Section 5276.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Carriers, True, section 66 (Gen. Stat. 1909, $ 5312) Cent. Dig. $$ 12, 14–20; Dec. Dig. 8 10.*] provides that every holder is deemed prima Appeal by Wells Fargo & Co. Express and facie to be a holder in due course until it is others from an order of the Corporation Comshown that the title of the person who ne- mission. Order affirmed. gociated it was defective, but section 5305

Cottingham & Bledsoe, of Oklahoma City, (Gen. Stat. 1909, § 5305) defines a holder in for appellants. Charles West, Atty. Gen., due course as one who took it in good faith and Chas. L. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the and for value, and who at the time it was state. negotiated to him had no notice of any defect in the title of the person negotiating it.


, This is an appeal It is naturally and logically urged that lack from an order of the Corporation Commis

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

*For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

sion of the state of Oklahoma by .Wells Far- "The Corporation Commission of this state 40 & Co., the American Express Company, has jurisdiction to entertain an action institutand the United States Express Company,from ficer designated by law to appear before said

ed in the name of the state, through the law ofthe action of the Corporation Commission in Commission, to recover from a transmission refusing to approve an additional suspending company the refund of excess charges which bond pending appeal from Order No. 203 of were collected by it in violation of the rates fix

ed by said Commission. the Corporation Commission of the state of

"Such action in the name of the state for the Oklahoma to the Supreme Court of the state. recovery of such refunds, for the purpose of the The facts relating to the appeal are brief. same being distributed to the persons entitled On the 11th day of June, 1909, the Corpora- thereto, is a police regulation incident to the eftion Commission of the state of Oklahoma is- corporations by the agencies of the state. sued its final Order No. 203, prescribing "The act of February 10, 1913 (Laws 1913, rates, rules, and regulations applicable to all c. 10), entitled 'An act conferring authority upintrastate express business in the state of troversies between parties growing out of re

on the Corporation Commission to adjust conOklahoma, and all companies engaged there- funds for public service; to require all refunds in, effective August 1, 1909. The United to be turned over to the Commission; to deterStates Express Company appealed from said mine the amount of refund, and to whom due;

and declaring an emergency'-is not repugnant order and gave a bond in the sum of $33,000. to section 46 (o) of article 5 (section 123, WilOn the 12th day of July, 1913, it was requir- liams' Ann. Ed.) of the Constitution of this ed, by the Corporation Commission, to give state. an additional bond of $277,000. Wells Fargo the constitutionality of an act by a party whose

“This court will not listen to the objection to & Co. likewise appealed from Order No. 203 right it does not affect, and who has no interest of the Corporation Commission of Oklahoma in defeating it.” and gave a suspending bond in the sum of The bonds should be conditioned as sug$200,000, which bond was subsequently re- gested by the Commission, that is, “That the duced by the Commission to $80,000. On the said companies will respectively pay to the 12th day of July, 1913, it was ordered by the Commission all charges which they may colCommission to give an additional bond in the lect or receive pending said appeal in excess sum of $112,000. The American Express of those fixed or authorized by the final deciCoinpany also appealed from Order No. 203 sion of the Supreme Court, for distribution of the Corporation Commission, executing by the Commission to the parties entitled a supersedeas, or suspending bond, in the thereto," and the order to file good and suffsum of $35,000. On the 12th day of July, cient bonds conditioned as required by the 1913, it was ordered by the Corporation Com- Commission is sustained. All the Justices mission to inciease its bond from $35,000 to concur. $140,760, the increase being $105,760. Pursuant to the orders above referred to, each

(45 Okl. 137) of the companies prepared and presented to SYFERT et al. v. MURPHY et al. (No. 6587.) the Commission for filing and approval, on (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Nov. 10, 1914. the 17th day of July, 1913, bonds in the sums Rehearing Denied Dec. 22, 1914.) required by the Commission's orders. The

(Syllabus by the Court.) Commission refused to approve the bonds,

— and from the order refusing to approve the APPEAL AND ERROR (8 327*)— NECESSARY PAR

TIES–DISMISSAL. bonds the express companies appeal, and it All persons who were parties to the prois stipulated between the express companies ceeding in the trial court, and whose interests and the Corporation Commission that the will be affected by the reversal of a judgment cause be submitted to this court for decision ties in the appellate court, or the proceeding

on appeal, must be brought in and made parupon the following question:

will be dismissed. "Are the appellants entitled to give an addi- [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Appeal and tional suspending bond conditioned that they Error, Cent. Dig. $$_1795, 1814–1820, 1822– will refund to the parties entitled thereto ail 1835; Dec. Dig. $ 327.*] charges which they may collect or receive pending the appeal, in excess of those authorized by

Error from District Court, Osage County; the final decision of the Supreme Court of the R. H. Hudson, Judge. state, under the Constitution, or, may they_be required by the Commission, under Senate Bill

Action by Frank J. Murphy and others No. 81, approved February 10, 1913, to execute against W. W. Syfert and others. Judgment such additional suspending bonds conditioned for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. that they will.pay to the Commission all charg- Dismissed. es which they may collect or receive, pending said appeal, in excess of those fixed or authoriz- Martin & Moss, of Tulsa, for plaintiffs in ed by the final decision of the Supreme Court

Grinstead & Scott, of Pawhuska, for for distribution by the Commission, to parties entitled thereto, pursuant to the provisions of defendants in error. said Senate Bill No. 81?"

Practically every question presented by the LOOFBOURROW, J. In December, 1909, briefs of counsel is settled by the opinion of Frank J. Murphy et al., the owners, entered this court in the case of Pioneer Telephone into a written contract by the terms of which & Telegraph Co. v. State, 40 Okl. 417, 138 they were to and did convey 240 acres of Pac. 1033, wherein it is held :

land in Osage county, Okl., to defendant James E. Hopkins; under this conveyance Action by Julia A. Tyler against Lucian H. Hopkins was to plat said lands as a town site Tyler. Demurrer to defendant's evidence and sell the same and pay Murphy et al. half sustained, and defendant brings error, and of the selling price; the contract was to plaintiff applies for an order directing the continue for three years unless forfeited for clerk to issue execution on judgment. Apnonfulfillment of condition. Before this peal dismissed. contract was fully carried out Hopkins mort

M. Fulton, of Mason, Tex., and R. E.

, gaged a portion of said property to plaintiff Bowling, of Lindsay, for plaintiff in error. in error White, to secure individual indebtedness of Hopkins; plaintiff in error Syfert

THACKER, C. This cause is brought here brought a suit in the district court against for the purpose of reversing a judgment of Hopkins and attached a number of the lots the trial court sustaining a demurrer to the in said town site; thereupon Frank J. Mur- evidence. The case-made filed herein fails phy et al. instituted a suit against Hopkins to show any motion for new trial was filed. for a rescission of the contract and against The appeal, therefore, under authority of InWhite and Syfert, respectively, for judgment surance Company of North America v. Litthat the mortgage and attachment were not tle, 34 Okl. 499, 125 Pac. 1098; Ardmore Oil liens on the property in question, because & Milling Co. v. Doggett Grain Co., 32 Okl. of its trust character. The trial court found 280, 122 Pac. 241; Stump v. Porter, 31 Okl. in favor of Murphy et al. and against both 157, 120 Pac. 639, and James v. Jackson, 30 White and Syfert, and also rendered judg-Okl. 190, 120 Pac. 288, should be dismissed. ment against Hopkins for $1,425; from this judgment plaintiffs in error, Syfert and PER CURIAM. Adopted in whole. White, appeal, and the defendants in error, Frank J. Murphy et al., have moved to dis

(44 Okl. 436) miss the same for the reason that James E. BERGER MFG. CO. v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. Hopkins is a necessary party to this pro

10 OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY et al. ceeding, and that no summons in error has

(No. 3879.) been served upon him, nor issuance or serv

Dec. 8, 1914.) ice thereof waived. To erery phase of the (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. controversy Hopkins was a party; he secured

(Syllabus by the Court.) the contract from Murphy et al.; he was APPEAL AND ERROR (8 82*)—DECISIONS APWhite's mortgagor and Syfert's judgment PEALABLE-ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT

"FINAL ORDER. debtor, and in the trial of the cause became

An order vacating a judgment under secthe judgment debtor of Murphy et al. Hop- tions 4464 and 4465, Stat. 1893 (sections 5267 kins is a necessary party, and the motion to and 5268, Rev. Laws 1910) is not "final," and dismiss the appeal must be sustained. See no appeal therefrom is authorized by sections County Commissioners v. Harvey et al., 5434 and 4436, Stat. 1893 (sections 5235 and

, 5

5236, Rev. Laws 1910). Okl. 468, 49 Pac. 1006; Outcalt v. Collier, 8

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Appeal and Okl. 473, 58 Pac. 642; Boynton Investment Error, Cent. Dig. 88 379–385, 414, 416, 478, Co. v. Runyan, 36 Okl. 335, 128 Pac. 1094; 479, 482, 483, 517-522; Dec. 'Dig. 's 82.* Weisbender v. School District, 24 Okl. 173, For other definitions, 'see Words and Phrases, 103 Pac. 639; John v. Paullin, 24 Okl. 636. First and Second Series, Final Order.] 104 Pac. 365; Seibert v. First Nat'l Bank, 25

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1. Okl. 778, 108 Pac. 628.

Error from District Court, Muskogee CounThe appeal is dismissed. All the Justices ty; R. P. 'De Graffenried, Judge. concur.

Action by the Berger Manufacturing Com

pany, a corporation, against School District (44 Okl. 411)

No. 10 of Muskogee County and others. TYLER v. TYLER. (No. 3727.)

Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Dec. 8, 1914.) error. Dismissed. (Syllabus by the Court.)

John H. Mosier, of Muskogee, for plaintiff APPEAL AND ERROR (285*)-RULING ON DE

in error. J. W. Brady, of Haskell, for deMURRER TO EVIDENCE-RESERVATION FOR fendant in error. REVIEW-MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL-NECESSITY. The ruling on a demurrer to the evidence

THACKER, C. An order vacating a judg. is a decision occurring on the trial; and, in ment as authorized by section 4464, Stat. order to enable the Supreme Court to review 1893 (section 5267, Rev. Laws 1910), upon such ruling, it is necessary that a motion for a procedure prescribed by section 4465, Stat. new trial be filed within the time prescribed 1893 (section 5268, Rev. Laws 1910), is not a by law.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Appeal and final order (Town of Byars v. Sprouls, 24 Okl. Error, Cent. Dig. $$ 1684–1690; Dec. Dig. $ 299, 103 Pac. 1038; Moody & Co. v. Freeman285.*]

Sipes Co. et al., 29 Okl. 390, 118 Pac. 135; Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1. Smith v. Whitlow et al., 31 Okl. 758, 123 Pac. Error from District Court, Oklahoma Coun- 1061; Langston v. Thigpen, 33 Okl. 605, 127 ty; John J. Carney, Judge.

| Pac. 258), within the meaning of sections

*For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

4 134 and 4436, Stat. 1893 (sections 5235 and, assumed name without violating section 2444, 5236, Rev. Laws 1910); and upon the au- Comp. Laws 1909, and whether he can mainthority of the above-cited cases this appeal tain an action for breach of contract made should be dismissed.

under such assumed name without having

first complied with section 5023 and section PER CURIAM. Adopted in whole.

5025, Comp. Laws 1909.

[1, 2] Section 5023, Comp. Laws 1909 (sec

tion 4109, Rev. Law's 1910), is as follows: (it Okl. 137)

"Except as otherwise provided in the next ROBINOVITZ v. HAMILL.

, (No. 3941.)

section, every partnership transacting business (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Dec. 8, 1914.) in this state under a fictitious name, or a desig

nation not showing the names of the persons (Syllabus by the Court.)

interested as partners in such business, must file

with the clerk of the district court of the county 1. PAETXERSHIP ($ 64*)-FICTITIOUS NAME- or subdivision in which its principal place of


business is stated, a certificate, stating the Sections 5023 and 5025, Comp. Laws 1909, names in full of all the members of such partand section 2444, Id., relate to partnerships com- nership, and their places of residence, and pubposed of two or more persons, and are not in- lish the same once a week for four successive tended to apply to one person who, being the weeks, in a newspaper published in the county, sole person interested in a business, adopts a if there be one, and if there be none in such business or trade-name under wbich the busi- county, then in a newspaper published in an ness is conducted.

adjoining county.' [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Partnership,

Section 5025, Comp. Laws 1909 (section Cent. Dig. 88 87-91 ; Dec. Dig. $ 64.*]

4471, Rev. Law's 1910), reads: 2. XAMES ($ 10*)-ASSUMED NAMES-RIGHT TO USE TRADE-XAME.

"The certificate filed with the clerk of the disA person, being the sole owner and manag- signed by the partners and acknowledged before

trict court provided in section 5023, must be er of a business, has, in the absence of a stat some officer authorized to take acknowledgute to the contrary, the right to assume any ments of conveyances of real property. name under which he chooses to conduct his sons doing business as partners, contrary to the business, so long as such business is conducted provisions of this article, shall not maintain any under such name in good faith, and may main action on or on account of any contracts made tain an action for breach of contracts made or transactions had in their partnership name under such business name.

in any court of this state until they have first [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Names, Cent. filed the certificate and made the publication Dig. $ 7; Dec. Dig. § 10.*]

herein required : Provided, however, that if Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2. provisions of this article, then such partnership

such partners shall at any time comply with the Error from County Court, Creek County; W. shall have the right to maintain an action in all H. Brown, Judge.

such partnership * * * transactions. Action by Max Robinovitz against J. G. Section 2144, Comp. Laws 1909, under the IIamill on a promissory note and an open topic, “Fictitious Copartnership,” reads: account. Judgment for defendant, and plain- "Every person transacting business in the tiff brings error. Reversed.

name of a person as a partner who is not inter

ested in his firm, or transacting business under C. F. Chapman, of Sapulpa, for plaintiff in a firm name in which the designation 'and Comerror. Thompson & Smith, of Sapulpa, for pany,' or '& Co.' is used without representing defendant in error.

an actual partner except in the cases in which the continued use of a copartnership name is

authorized by law, is guilty of a misdemeanor.” ILARRISON, C. Max Robinovitz was en- It is contended by defendant in error, in gaged in the business of furnishing supplies support of the action of the trial court in disfor oil wells and well drilling outfits under missing the plaintiff's suit, that plaintiff, by the name of the Producers' Supply Company. doing business under the assumed name ProThe defendant owed plaintiff $125 on a prom-ducers' Supply Company, without first havissory note and $30.03 on an open account for ing filed the certificate and made the publicasupplies purchased by defendant from plain- tion required under section 5023, supra, was tiff, and all of which defendant refused to precluded under section 5025, supra, from pay. Plaintiff sued defendant on the note maintaining an action; and also that having and account. At the close of the testimony conducted his business under an assumed defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's action name in violation of section 2444, supra, the on the ground that plaintiff was doing busi-contract was void and the plaintiff guilty of ness under a fictitious name, to wit, the Pro- a misdemeanor. Neither of these contentions ducers' Supply Company, and not having com- can be sustained, because neither of the proplied with section 5023 and section 5025, visions of statute, supra, are applicable to Comp. Laws 1909, he could not maintain an the facts in the case at bar. Robinovitz alaction, and on the further ground that the leged in his petition, and testified on the contract being made in violation of section stand, that he was the owner and proprietor 2444, Comp. Laws 1909, was null and void of the business; that no one else was interThe court sustained the motion to dismiss, ested in it; that he owned and controlled and the cause comes here on appeal for deter- the Producers' Supply Company, and that mination of the question whether a person such name comprised him and none other; can conduct a mercantile business under an Ithat defendant had purchased supplies from him doing business under the trade-name In 14 Pl. & Pr. 277, under the title "Assumaforesaid; that the contract for such sup- ed Names,” etc. : plies was entered into between him as an in- "Notwithstanding a person may not change dividual under the assumed name of Produc- his name without a proper proceeding for that ers' Supply Company and the defendant un

purpose, where it is so prescribed by statute,

he may, as at common law, adopt any name be der his own name; that the supplies were pleases in his business transactions, and such furnished, part on a promissory note and name, or any name by which he is usually part on an open account, and that defendant known and called, is sufficient by which to deshad promised to pay said note and said ac-stituted against him; and he is estopped from

ignate him in civil or criminal proceedings incount but had never done so. To this state repudiating a name in which he contracts for of facts sections 5023 and 5025, supra, are the purpose of relieving himself of the obligation not applicable because they are clearly in of the contract. There is nothing so sacred in tended to apply to partnerships composed of siced to its sanctity. So a person may sue in

a name that right and justice should be sacritwo or more persons who are doing business any name in which he may contract, as well as under a fictitious name which does not dis-in any name by which he is generally known." close the names of the individual members of We are satisfied, therefore, that the plainthe partnership, and does not apply to an in- tiff, Robinovitz, had the right to assume any dividual person not engaged in a partnership name under which he chose to conduct his business, but who merely assumes a business business, so long as such business was conname under which he chose to conduct his ducted in good faith, and that he had a right business. For the same reason section 2444 to maintain an action for breach of contracts is not applicable, as it very clearly contem- made under such business name, and that plates a copartnership composed of two or the trial court erred in sustaining the motion more persons. That an action may be main- to dismiss, and, as there was no other detained against a person conducting a busi- fense to plaintiff's action except that he was ness under an assumed name has been decid-doing business under an assumed name, the ed by this court in National Surety Co. v. judgment is reversed, with instructions to Okl. Presb. College, etc., 38 Okl. 429, on page reinstate the action and render judgment in 433, 132 Pac. 652, on page 654, in which Chief favor of plaintiff. Justice Hayes, speaking for the court, said:

"It would have been better practice for plain- PER CURIAM. Adopted in whole. tiffs to have brought their action against M. J. Gill, doing business under the name of M. J. Gill Construction Company; but that they may maintain an action against him in the name of

(44 Okl. 398) the M. J. Gill Construction Company has not LIBERTY TP. v. ROCK ISLAND TP. been questioned in the proceeding here; and

(No. 3489.) such a procedure is sustained by respectable authorities upon reasons which appear satisfac- (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Dec. 8, 1914.) tory to us. Graham v. Eiszner, 28 Ill. App. 269; Sheridan et al. v. Nation, 159 Mo. 27, 59

(Syllabus by the Court.) S. W. 972; Wooster v. Lyons, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 11. Towns (8 1*)—"TOWNSHIP"-POWERS. 60; Baumeister v. Markham, 101 Ky. 122, 39 S. W. 844, 41 S. W. 816, 72 Am. St. Rep; 397; and political division of a state, organized as a

A "township” is an involuntary territorial School Dist. v. Pillsbury, 58 N. H. 423."

quasi municipal corporation for the exercise of And as to whether a person doing business a portion of the state's political power, with under an assumed name can himself main- little independent corporate life. tain an action was decided by this court in

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Towns, Cent. Roberts v. Mosier, 35 Okl. 691, 132 Pac. 678, Dig. $ 1; Dec. Dig. & 1.* . ,

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, in which Justice Williams, speaking for the First and Second Series, Township.} court, said:

2. TOWNS (8 16*)-TOWNSHIPS-DISPOSITION "If, as stated in the petition, he adopted it OF PROPERTY-LEGISLATIVE POWERS. some years ago, engaged in business by that

Property held by a municipal or quasi muname, and is known among his business ac-nicipal corporation in its public or governmental quaintances and customers by that designation, right, as a trustee or agent of the state, as conthere is no reason why he should not continue tradistinguished from its private or proprietary to use it. Any contract or obligation he may right, is subject absolutely to the legislative will enter into, or which others may enter into with in respect to its disposition. him by that name, or any grant or devise he may hereafter make by it, would be valid and Dig. § 21; Dec. Dig. $ 16.*]

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Towns, Cent. binding; for, as an acquired and known designation it has become as effectually his name as 3. TOWNS (8 11*)-ORGANIZATION OF NEW the one which he previously bore. I have no

TOWNSHIPS-INTEREST IN PARK. hesitation, therefore, in saying that I think he When the Legislature bas, by special enactmay lawfully use it hereafter, in all transac-ment, permitted a township to acquire a park tions, as his name or designation."

within its boundaries for general park purposes In 29 Cyc. 270, under the title “Assumed and for the use of all political, religious, and

other societies, as well as "for the purpose of Names," etc.:

holding a fair, or fruit, poultry, or other shows," "Without abandoning his real name, a person for which an admission fee may be charged, may adopt any name, style, or signature, whol- with "booths and other privileges," for which ly different from his own 'name, by which he a license fee may be charged, all under the govmay transact business, execute contracts, issue ernment and control of a board of commissionnegotiable paper, and sue or be sued."

ers thereby authorized to be elected as other *For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

144 P.-65

« ПредишнаНапред »