Vol. II.]

DIGEST OF CASES.

[No. 12.

outward act in furtherance of the transaction, is not a change of title. which avoids the policy. 1b.

5. POWER OF AGENT TO WAIVE CONDITIONS OF POLICY. - The policy provided that it should be void in case of other insurance without written consent indorsed. Held, that an agent having power to indorse consent could, by express words or implication, give oral consent that would be a valid waiver of the required condition. Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co., Ib.

INTEREST.

STATE MAY PROHIBIT RECOVERY OF. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Where interest is not expressly stipulated for in the contract, it is not an essential part thereof, and the state may prohibit its recovery without impairing the obligation of the contract. In Virginia interest is only recoverable by virtue of statutes which make the allowance of it discretionary with the court and jury. Therefore a statute allowing an abatement of interest that accrued during the war, between citizens of the same state, is constitutional and valid. Harmanson v. Wilson, D. C. U. S. E. D. Va.,

Am. Law Reg., Oct. 1875.

INTERNAL REVENUE.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 2.

LANDLORD AND TENANT.

If a note taken for rent is not paid at maturity the landlord has the same remedies as if no note had been given. In re Bowne, D. C. U. S. N. J., 12 N. B. R. No. 12.

CONDITIONAL SALE.

See BANKRUPTCY, 1, 2.

LEASE.

OF PLEDGEE AS AGAINST LESSOR.

UNRECORDED LEASE OF CHATTEL. RIGHTS A locomotive was leased by the manufacturers to a railroad corporation in Iowa, by an instrument in writing not recorded, for a sum equal to its value, to be paid in nine months; otherwise the manufacturers were to have the right to repossess the same. The lessee pledged the locomotive to a bank to secure a loan of money. Held, under § 1922 of the Iowa Code, 1873, which requires contracts for the conditional sale of chattels to be recorded in order to be valid against creditors and subsequent purchasers without notice, that the pledgee's right was superior to that of the manufacturers. P. L. & C. Works v. State National Bank of Keokuk, C. C. U. S. Iowa, Cent. L. J., Oct. 22, 1875; Chicago L. N., Oct. 30, 1875.

LEX LOCI.

See CONFLICT OF LAWS.

LIBEL.

EVIDENCE WHERE SPECIAL DAMAGE IS ALLEGED.

A declaration in

an action of slander, in which there is a claim for special damage, on ac

Vol. II.]

DIGEST OF CASES.

[No. 12.

count of the plaintiff having been prevented from obtaining employment by reason of the slander, ought to name the parties by whom such employment was refused. If not so stated no evidence of particular persons, having refused to employ the plaintiff, will be received. In such action the pecuniary condition of the defendant may be taken into consideration by the jury in assessing damages. Cramer v. Cullinane, S. C. D. C., W. L. R., Oct. 5, 1875.

LIMITATIONS.

See BANKRUPTCY, 4.

MASTER AND SERVANT.

See NEGLIGENCE, 4.

NATIONAL BANK.

1. BOND-BROKERAGE BY.- ULTRA VIRES. - In an action of deceit against a national bank, seeking to recover damages for the alleged fraudulent representations of its teller made in the sale to the plaintiff of certain railroad bonds; held, that the business of selling bonds on commission is not within the scope of the powers of national banking associations, and the bank cannot, under any circumstances, carry it on; and being thus beyond its corporate power, the defence of ultra vires is open to it, and the bank is not responsible for any false representations, by which the plaintiff may have been damnified, made by its teller, in any such dealing. Welcker v. First National Bank, Ct. App. Md., Am. Law Reg., Oct. 1875.

2. A NATIONAL BANK MAY TAKE A PLEDGE OF CHATTELS as security for a loan. P. L. & C. Car Works v. State Nat. Bk. of Keokuk, C. C. U. S. Iowa, Cent. L. J., Oct. 22, 1875; Chicago L. N., Oct. 30, 1875.

NEGLIGENCE.

1. DAMAGES. RATE OF SPEED OF TRAIN IN CITY. - Regard must be had to the habits, character, condition, and circumstances of people living in a city and along the line of a railroad, in ascertaining what degree of care is necessary in running trains, and an admitted trespass upon the road will not necessarily bar an action for damages. P. R. R. Co. v. Lewis, S. C. Pa., Am. Law Reg., Nov. 1875; Mo. West. Jur., Oct. 1875.

2. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. - EFFECT OF EMPLOYEE NOTIFYING SUPERINTENDENT OF R. R. CO. OF DANGER OF INJURY. · An employee upon a railroad was thrown from a car and injured, owing to a defect in the construction of a switch. In an action against the company the plaintiff offered to prove that he had notified both the foreman and the superintendent of the road of the defective condition of the switch; that they had promised to have the necessary repairs made, and had requested the plaintiff to continue the use of the switch, exercising due care; that the repairs were not made prior to the accident, and that in consequence of such neglect he had sustained his present injuries. The court below refused to admit the offer. Held (reversing the judgment of the court below), that the evidence should have been admitted. Patterson v. P. & C. R. R. Co., S. C. Pa., Cent. L. J., Oct. 1, 1875.

Vol. II.]

DIGEST OF CASES.

[No. 12.

3. DRAWING

RAISED CHECK.

CHECKS. RIGHT TO

The plaintiffs sued the defendant, their treasurer, for money received and not accounted for. The defendant made payments on orders drawn on him by the plaintiffs, and so drawn as to admit of the amounts being increased after the plaintiffs had affixed their signature. The plaintiffs claimed the difference between the amount for which they had drawn the checks, and the amount to which they had afterwards been increased, and which larger amount the defendant had paid. Held, that the plaintiffs could not recover, as the orders were negligently drawn by them, and that the defendant was not responsible for the consequences of their negligence. The defendant, besides being the plaintiff's treasurer, was also the manager of a bank at which the plaintiffs kept an account for their own benefit, and on which they received interest. The plaintiffs sued for certain sums paid by the defendant on orders drawn by them, but of which the indorsements had been forged without any negligence on their part. Held, that the plaintiffs could not recover; that the defendant, though not a banker within the bankers' act, was still, on the facts of the case, not liable; that there was no receipt of money except by the bank; and that as the bankers were discharged the defendant was also discharged. Guardians of the Poor, &c. v. Wheelwright, Ct. of Ex., Cent. L. J., Oct. 15, 1875.

4. MASTER AND SERVANT. INJURY TO FELLOW-SERVANT. - The plaintiff was employed as a laborer in a silver mine worked by a corporation. While so employed he was injured by stones thrown from a blast exploded by miners in the employment of the same corporation. Held, that the plaintiff and the miners were not fellow-servants engaged in the same common employment, and that an action would lie. In such a case it is good pleading to charge the tortious act as having been committed by the corporation, instead of charging it as having been committed by its servants. Kieley v. Belcher S. M. Co., C. C. U. S. Nev., Cent. L. J., Oct. 29, 1875.

5. NEGLIGENCE BY SURGEON. TIENT.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE BY PA-A surgeon assumes to exercise the ordinary care and skill of his profession, and is liable for injuries resulting from his failure to do so; yet if his patient neglects to obey the reasonable instructions of the surgeon, and thereby contributes to the injury complained of, he cannot recover for such injury. The information given by a surgeon to his patient concerning the nature of his malady is a circumstance that should be considered in determining whether the patient, in disobeying the instructions of the surgeon, was guilty of contributory negligence or not. Geiselman v. Scott, S. C. Ohio, Cent. L. J., Oct. 29, 1875.

See CORPORATION.

PATENT (LAND).

THE COMMISSIONER OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE CANNOT RECALL OR CANCEL A PATENT FOR LAND, after its transmission to the local land office for delivery to the patentee; since the patent, when the last formalities required by law of the officers of the government have been complied with, is a matter of record, which, so far as the government is concerned,

Vol. II.]

DIGEST OF CASES.

[No. 12.

is delivered the same as a deed by grantor to grantee; but if the patentee refuses to receive the patent, because certain necessary acts have not yet been done by the government, the commissioner may recall and cancel it. Leroy v. Jamison, C. C. U. S. Cal., Cent. L. J., Oct. 21, 1875.

PLEADING AND PRACTICE.

PLEA IN U. S. COURT OF ACTION IN STATE COURT. It seems that a plea to an action in the circuit court of the United States, which sets up the pendency of a prior litigation in a state court within the same district, between the same parties and upon the same subject matter, is a good plea in abatement; but if the plea on its face discloses that the parties to the litigation in the state court are not the same as those to the action in which the plea is filed, the defendant will be ruled to answer. Brooks v. Mills Co., C. C. U. S. Iowa, Cent. L. J., Nov. 5, 1875.

See DAMAGES.

PRINCIPAL AND FACTOR.

1. CONSIGNMENT ON SALE. Though a consignor may reserve a special property in goods consigned until bills of exchange, drawn for their price, are paid to the bill holders, yet he cannot, in a consignment on sale to a consignee, in which no such special property is reserved to protect bills drawn upon the consignee for the price, reserve a special property in notes and accounts, which the consignee may take for the goods, from persons to whom the consignee may sell them, as against other creditors of the consignee, who goes into bankruptcy. In re Chamberlaines, D. C. U. S. E. D. Va., Am. Law Reg., Nov. 1875.

2. A CONSIGNMENT OF GOODS UNDER A SPECIAL CONTRACT, in which the consignee gives his acceptances for their value, payable partly at sight and partly at a future day, and agrees to account for the whole price, to guarantee the sales, and to receive a commission of ten per cent., with other stipulations, making him primarily liable for the price of the goods, falls within the principle of Ex parte White, In re Nevill, Law Rep. 4 Ch. App. 397, and is a consignment on sale, as distinguished from a consignment on del credere guaranty. 1b.