and labor required for that purpose; and that C. did not and could not know, from the appearance or from examination of the staging, whether it was or was not strong enough for his workmen to go upon to paint the church. There was no evidence that the defendants took any part in erecting the staging, or in directing its erection, beyond making the contract with D.; or that they at any time made any inspection of the staging; or that they were guilty of any negligence in employing D. to erect it. Held, that the society, through its authorized agents, had accepted and used the staging, and had in effect invited and induced C. and his workmen to come upon it to paint the church, and was liable to the plaintiff for an injury from the dangerous condition of the staging which was not apparent to him and which was caused by negligence in its construction. Held, also, that the society and its agents could not be sued jointly in this action. Mulchey v. Methodist Religious Society, 487.
After judgment for the conversion of certain chattels, an action cannot be maintained for the conversion of other chattels taken by the same act, al- though the plaintiff was prevented from including them in the former action by the fraudulent acts of the defendant. McCaffrey v. Carter, 330.
5. If a person falls from a platform twenty feet to the ground, becomes un- conscious on striking the ground, and remains so until his death, damages cannot, in an action against the person who was bound to keep the platform in repair, and through whose neglect in so doing the accident happened, be recovered for the mental or other suffering endured during the fall. Ken- nedy v. Standard Sugar Refinery, 90.
6. An action for personal injuries caused by falling a distance of forty feet, and resulting in instant death on reaching the ground, cannot be maintained. Moran v. Hollings, 93.
7. An action of tort in the nature of deceit cannot be maintained against an officer, who, at a sale of land on execution, in good faith makes a statement, as of his own knowledge, that the land is free from incumbrances, when it is in fact incumbered. Tucker v. White, 344.
8. A grantee cannot maintain an action of contract upon an oral statement made by his grantor, before delivery of the deed, that the land is free from incumbrances. Ib.
9. An agreement to forbear, for a certain time, to enforce the performance of a contract complete in itself cannot be pleaded in bar to an action upon the contract. Rodocanachi v. Buttrick, 134.
See ASSESSOR; Bankrupt, 3; Bond, 3; Conflict of Laws, 2; Contract, 3, 5; CORPORATION, 2; EQUITY, 10; INTEREST; JOINT DEBTOR; Plead- ING, 2; PROMISSORY NOTE, 1, 3, 4; RAILROAD, 1, 7; Ship, 2; Sur- VEYOR OF HIGHWAYS, 1; TRUST AND TRUSTEE, 1.
ADMINISTRATOR.
See EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR.
ADMISSION.
See EVIDENCE, 14.
ADULTERATION.
See INDICTMENT, 1.
ADULTERY.
See EVIDENCE, 16.
ALABAMA CLAIMS.
See BANKRUPT, 4, 6; INSOLVENT DEBTOR.
ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS. See PROMISSORY NOTE, 1, 2.
See PARTNERSHIP; PRINCIPAL AND SURETY, 1; Trust and TrusteR, 1 TRUSTEE PROCESS.
ANSWER.
See PLEADING, III
An appeal from the judgment of a magistrate upon charges of fraud under the Gen. Sts. c. 124, §§ 31-34, against a person applying to take the oath for the relief of poor debtors, by which the debtor is adjudged guilty of some of the specifications in the charges and not guilty of others, vacates the whole judgment, and opens the case for trial upon all the charges, al though the other party does not appeal. Morse v. Dayton, 47.
See EQUITY, 11; INTERROGATORIES, 2; NUISAnce, 1.
APPRAISER.
See EXECUTION.
AQUEDUCT.
See DAMAGES, 3.
ARRAIGNMENT.
See CONVICTION.
See ACTION, 1; OFFICER, 1, 2.
An indictment charging that A. "in and upon one B., with a certain danger- ous weapon, to wit, with a pistol then and there loaded with powder and a leaden ball, with which dangerous weapon the said A. was then and there armed, feloniously, wilfully and of his malice aforethought did make an as- sault, with intent the said B. then and there, with the pistol aforesaid, felo- niously, wilfully and of his malice aforethought to kill and murder," suffi- ciently sets forth an assault with a dangerous weapon; and is sustained by proof of an assault by shooting with the pistol. Commonwealth v. Fenno,
Assessors are liable, in an action of tort, for assessing and issuing a warrant for the collection of a school-district tax, if the school district was not le- gally established, although it was certified to them, by one acting as clerk of the district, that the tax had been voted by the district. Judd v. Thomp- son, 553.
ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY. See BANKRUPt, 1, 3, 4, 6.
1. Future wages, to be earned under an engagement not existing at the time, are not capable of being assigned. Herbert v. Bronson, 475.
2. In an action on an account annexed for work and labor, brought in the name of A. for the benefit of C., there was evidence that A., who was in the employ of B. by the day, assigned to C. all claims against B. for money due and to become due "for services rendered and to be rendered" for a certain time; that the consideration of this assignment was goods already furnished and to be furnished by C. to A.; that, before the time limited by the assign- ment expired, A. left the employ of B., and entered the employ of D., under an arrangement by which A. was to continue to work on B.'s premises at the same wages, to be paid by B. to D., and by the latter to A., partly in cash and partly in goods. Held, that A.'s employment by B. being by the day, he had the right at any time to find employment elsewhere; and that none of A.'s wages, after he ceased to work for B., passed by the assign
ment to C. although the arrangement between A., B. and D. was made with the intent to terminate the employment of A. by B., and deprive C. of the benefit of the assignment. Lightbody v. Smith, 51.
EQUITY, 6; LEASE, 1, 2; OFFICER, 3.
See BOND, 3; Contract, 4, 5; EQUITY, 3, 7; Judgment, 2, 3; Officer, 8' PARTNERSHIP; PRINCIPAL AND SURETY; TRUST AND TRUSTEE, 5, 6.
ATTORNEY AND COUNSEL.
See INTERROGATORIES, 1; PAYMENT, 3.
It is no ground of objection to the report of an auditor, that, for the purpose of determining the issues submitted to him, he construes a contract, the construction of which is involved in such determination. Coker v. Ropes,
See CARRIER; EVIDENCE, 9.
1. A national bank which purchases a promissory note from an indorsee may maintain an action thereon in its own name against a prior party thereto, without regard to the question whether the purchase was one which it was authorized by law to make. National Pemberton Bank v. Porter, 333.
2. In an action for money had and received, to which the answer was a gen- eral denial, it appeared that the defendants, a firm of brokers, sent to the plaintiff, a national bank, certain promissory notes, ordered by its president and a director, for the amount of which its cashier returned a check to them; and the question was whether the plaintiff purchased the notes or had the option to buy them or not, as its board of directors should decide. The directors refused to purchase the notes. The defendants offered to prove that national banks bought commercial paper, which their presidents were authorized by usage to purchase, and requested the judge to rule that, even if the plaintiff had such option, the action of its cashier completed the sale. The judge rejected the evidence, refused so to rule, and, by con- sent of parties, before verdict, reported the case to this court, upon an agreement that if the plaintiff could not lawfully buy the notes and the evidence was rightly rejected and the rulings refused, a verdict should be entered for the plaintiff. Held, that the question whether a national bank had authority to purchase promissory notes did not arise in the case; ano
that the question as to the contract between the parties was for the jury Attleborough National Bank v. Rogers, 339.
1. An assignee in bankruptcy has no better title than the bankrupt, except in goods conveyed in fraud of creditors. Dugan v. Nichols, 43.
2. Under the U. S. Rev. Sts. § 5013, the four months next preceding the com- mencement of proceedings in bankruptcy, an attachment made within which is dissolved by § 5044, are to be reckoned exclusive of the first day, and, if the last day falls on Sunday, exclusive of that also. Cooley v. Cook, 406. 3. An assignee in bankruptcy, after demand and refusal, may maintain an action of tort, in the nature of trover, against an officer holding goods of the bankrupt under an attachment on mesne process which has been dis- solved by the assignment in bankruptcy, without first applying to the court from which the process issued for an order to deliver the goods to him. Ib. 4. Money paid by the United States, according to a decision of the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims, under the U. S. St. of June 23, 1874, to the owner of a cargo destroyed by one of the insurgent cruisers, with respect to which it was determined by the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, constituted by virtue of the Treaty of Washington of 1871, that Great Britain had failed to fulfil her duties as a neutral government, belongs to an assignee of such owner, appointed under the bankrupt act of 1867, after the destruction of the property and before the making of the treaty; and may be recovered from the owner by the assignee in an action for money had and received. Leonard v. Nye, 455.
5. The U. S. St. of February 26, 1853, requiring assignments of any claim upon the United States to be executed in the presence of two witnesses, and after the allowance of the claim, the ascertainment of the amount due, and the issue of a warrant for its payment, applies only to voluntary assign- ments in pais, and not to assignments by operation of law in bankruptcy proceedings. Ib.
6. A sale by an assignee in bankruptcy, under order of the court, of “certain choses in action, consisting of certain bills, notes and accounts, nominally of the value of about $1000, but in reality nearly worthless," does not include the right of the assignee in money afterwards awarded to the bank- rupt by the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims for the previous destruction of his property by an insurgent cruiser. lb.
7. Under the U. S. St. of June 22, 1874, § 12, knowledge on the part of a pur- chaser, that the sale was in fraud of the seller's other creditors, is neces- sary to set aside the sale as to him. Lincoln v. Wilbur, 249.
8. On the issue whether a sale made by a person within four months of his bankruptcy was in fraud of his creditors, evidence of what he said, after the sale, and without the knowledge of the purchaser, as to the disposition of his property, and mortgages subsequently made by him, not shown to be connected with such sale or parts of a general scheme to defraud, are inad missible, as against the purchaser. Ib.
« PreviousContinue » |