an insurance company of the acts
of one who solicits for it a risk
and fills up an application for in-
surance, establishes his relation as-
agent of the company, in respect
to such acts, and any errors or
omissions of the agent in the
course of such acts are the errors
and omissions of the company.
Mowry v. The World Mutual Life
Ins. Co.,
321

4. Where the principal clerk of an
incorporated fire insurance com-
pany, whose duties were to receive
applications, fill out policies and
renewals, and to "generally at-
tend to whatever was transacted
behind the counter," made at the
place of business of the company
a parol contract of insurance with
an applicant, held that the com-
pany were bound by the act of the
clerk. Cooke v. Etna Ins. Co.,

PUBLIC MORALS.

555

1. The plaintiff purchased from the
defendant the right to exhibit at a
fair held by it a certain article
manufactured by her and known
as an "abdominal supporter," and
also the right to an allotment of
space in the defendant's building
for the purpose of such exhibition,
such rights purchased by the
plaintiff being subject to the con-
dition of a right in the board of
managers of the defendant to re-
fuse admission to any one whom
they might consider an improper
person, and to remove the goods
of such exhibitor, and also to ex-
clude any article they might deem
objectionable, and the plaintiff, in
connection with the exhibition of
her manufacture, exposed and cir-
culated a circular in relation there-
to-part of the circular being in
capital letters-in which it was
stated that the article was espe-
cially adapted "to the treatment
of the various displacements of
the uterus, and a relapsed state of
the abdominal parts," and "for
causing the womb and other or-
gans to assume their natural posi-
tions," and that "ladies would
find great comfort in wearing them
before and after confinement," and
that "in cases of pregnancy or
very large abdomen No. 2 should
be ordered," and that "they can

66

be washed," and that orders
should be accompanied with
measure around the largest part of
the hips." When the character of
this circular was brought to the
attention of the board of man-
agers of the defendant they di-
rected its suppression, and notice
of their action was given to the
plaintiff, and she was notified that
if she did not suppress the circular
or modify it her privileges would
be withdrawn and her goods re-
moved from the exhibition. After
she had persistently refused to
do either, and after the amount
paid by her for her privilege of
exhibition had been tendered her,
she was excluded from admission
as an exhibitor, and her goods re-
moved from the exhibition. Held,
that the character of, the circular
and the plaintiff's refusal to sup-
press or modify it justified such
exclusion and removal under the
conditions on which plaintiff pur-
chased her privilege to exhibit.
Per ROBINSON, J. Smith v. The
American Institute of the City of
New York,
526

R

RECEIVER.

1. Qaære, whether an admission of
service of an order to show cause
why a receiver should not be ap-
pointed of a corporation, in pro-
ceedings by the attorney-general
to dissolve it, made by the attor-
neys of the corporation, is suffi-
cient to give the court jurisdiction
to make the order appointing the
receiver. Bedell v. North Amer-
ica Life Ins. Co.,
273

REFERENCE.

A referee appointed by the court in
a referable action to hear and de-
termine the issues where he is not
willing to act for the statutory
compensation, and one of the par-
ties is unwilling to agree to pay a
higher rate, should not declare
that he will go on with the refer-
ence, and expect to be paid such
higher rate, and look to the pre-
vailing party therefor, and hold
his report as security for such pay-
ment unless ordered to give it up
without such payment, and where

the counsel for the party objecting
to such increased compensation in
such a case, thereupon refused to
proceed, and withdrew. Held,
that they were justified in refusing
to proceed with the trial under
such conditions, and that the ref-
eree should be removed and an-
other appointed in his place. Dev-
lin v. The Mayor,
466

REMOVAL OF SUITS TO
UNITED STATES COURTS.

1. Under the act of Congress of
March 3d, 1875, which provides
that any suit of a civil nature at
law or in equity, now pending or
hereafter brought in any State
court, when the matter in dispute
exceeds $500 and in which there
shall be a controversy between
citizens of different States, may be
removed by either party into the
Circuit Court of the United States
for the proper district. Held, that
the defendant could remove a suit
in this court for a balance of ac-
count brought against him by an
assignee of it, who was a citizen
of a different State, though his as-
signor in whose favor the debt was
contracted was a citizen of the
same State as the defendant.
Leutze v. Butterfield,

24

1. Where the defendants agreed to
sell and deliver to the plaintiff oil
of a specified quality, and in ful-
fillment of that contract tendered
certain oil which the plaintiff, after
an actual inspection and examina-
tion of it, accepted and shipped to
Havre, where a certain portion of
it was discovered to be of an in-
ferior quality, but the plaintiff did
not offer to return any of it to the
defendants but sold the entire
quantity and received the proceeds.
Held (following Reed v. Randall,
29 N. Y. 358), that the plaintiff
could not make any claim for dam-
ages on account of the inferior
quality of the oil. Heydecker v.
Lombard,

19

2. Where the plaintiff, upon discov-
ering that certain oil that had been
delivered to him under an execu-
tory contract of sale, was of a
quality inferior to that called for
by the contract, notified the de-
fendants of the fact and asked
them for directions about it and
was told to do every thing that the
claim might be well established
against whom it might concern.
Held, that this did not amount to
an offer to return the oil and a re-
fusal to accept it.
ib.

3. It is a defense to an action by a
vendee for damages for non-deliv-
ery, that the vendee and a confed-
erate were engaged in the attempt
to obtain the sale and delivery of
the goods for promissory notes of
a third party known to them to be
worthless, although the vendor,
who discovered the fraud during
the attempt, allowed the sale but
not the delivery to be consum-
mated, and with the intent only of
securing possession of the notes as
evidence of attempted fraud;—if
such vendor at the trial tenders
back the worthless notes.
v. Watrous,

Royce
87

4. The plaintiff took a bill of sale of
goods, paying the price named
therein, and executing a written
agreement to return them at an
advance specified, if the former
Owners desired to repurchase
within two months, and, in that
event, to pay over the proceeds of
those sold meantime, less ten per
cent. commission, and the testi-
mony of the parties to the trans-
action was conflicting as to
whether it was an absolute sale or
a transfer as security for the sum
advanced. Held, that on the face
of the instruments, in the absence
of evidence going to show fraud on
the part of the buyer, or undue
inadequacy in the price paid, the
transaction was in effect an abso-
lute sale with a right to repurchase,
and valid as against creditors levy-
ing on the goods under execution
against the vendor, and that on the
conflict of testimony, the jury
should determine the character of
the transaction. Mahler v. Schloss,

In an action for slander the defen-
dant may show in mitigation of
damages that the slanderous words
complained of were spoken by him
in the heat of passion, occasioned
by recent conduct of a provoking
character on the part of the plain-
tiff, and therefore Held, that in
mitigation of damages for having
called the plaintiff a thief and a
Scoundrel; with having made false
entries in the defendant's books,
and having sold goods for the de-
fendant and collected more than
he returned or accounted to the
defendant for, the defendant might
show that the plaintiff had been
discharged from the defendant's
employ about two months previ-
ous to the time when the slander-
ous words were spoken, and that
after his discharge the plaintiff
had gone about among the defen-
dant's customers warning them
against him, saying that he would
charge them usurious interest, sell
them out, and break them up.
Palmer v. Lang,
33

SECURITY FOR COSTS.

1. A defendant, upon the commence-
ment of an action against him by
an infant, is entitled to an appear-
ance by such infant by a guardian
ad litem who is pecuniarily re-
sponsible for his costs. But if the
defendant does not raise the ques-
tion of the guardian's responsibility
as soon as apprised of the person
appointed, he acquiesces in his
sufficiency to act in that capacity,