cepting six railroad cars, which were not tiffs, who were a firm, was frequently at then to be found. Pending the sale by the creditors' meetings; that he nominthe sheriff, the creditors, mostly, signed an ated a trustee; that when he was asked agreement by which the property was to to sign the agreement, he replied that be assigned to three trustees to be elected their claim was small, that they would not by the creditors. These trustees were to move in the matter, and that he would carry on the furnace until the debts were not disturb the trustees if they went on. paid. But the agreement had the follow- He also said that he was satisfied with ing stipulation: "This agreement shall the arrangement, but did not sign on acnot be binding unless signed by all the count of his partner. The other partner creditors of the said Richard A. Middle- instructed a person to act for them in the ton whose claims severally exceed the matter as he would for himself, and one sum of fifty dollars." of the firm asked whether any dividend Plaintiffs did not sign. Their clain had been made. was for $800. On certain of the plaintiffs' points, the Middleton and his wife made a deed Court charged that the jury must say of trust to defendants, reciting his em- whether the acts of the plaintiff's misled barrassment, etc., and conveying all his the trustees, and that positive evidence as property, real and personal, to the trustee to that was not required, but that they "to work the furnace so long as the cred- could be guided by the circumstances; itors may determine it to be to their that public acts of the plaintiffs as to interest to do so," etc. The defendants accepted the trust, bought in some articles with their own money at the sheriff's sale under, the levy then existing, and manufactured iron as contemplated. The creditors held meetings in the matter of the trust; and the business of the furnace, after an unsuccessful attempt to sell it, was carried on with the means and on the credit of the trustees. their acquiescence, though not directly communicated to the trustees, could be given in evidence, etc. The jury found for the defendants, and on appeal the judgment was affirmed. Guiterman et al. v. Landis et al. TORS. In February, 1873, plaintiffs recovered judgment against Middleton, and levied EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRAon the six railroad cars, and on a lot of pig metal which had been made by the trustees. On the first trial the Court held that the deed of trust was an assignment for the benefit of creditors, under the Act of 1818, and the supplements thereto, and therefore there could be no recovery. The Supreme Court reversed that judgment, but held, at that time on the same point, in Peters v. Landis et al., "that the pig metal manufactured by the trustees, with their own money and credit, was not subject to levy under plaintiffs' exe Administration will be granted to a stranger, (under 20 and 21 Vict., c. 77, 8. 73) when the next of kin is out of the country and renounces, and she and the resident interested parties consent thereto. Application for letters of administra tion. Maria Hopkins died, leaving Matilda Henry, claiming to be her lawful niece, the only next of kin, and the only person entitled in distribution to her personal estate. Certain other persons, cousins german of the deceased, were her next of kin, if Matilda was not legitimate. On the second trial the defendants' Doubts as to this legitimacy arose, and evidence showed that one of the plain-the property, by a deed between the cution." cousins and Matilda, was divided, and evidence to fortify the complaint as verithere was a provision that the adminis- fied. tration should be taken out by a stranger. Held, 1. That an injunction will not lie Matilda, who was absent from the in this case. country, renounced, and she and the 2. The defendant is entitled to the cousins, who were infirm old ladies, con- possession of the office until he is ousted sented that the person named should by a proper judgment. administer the personal estate, which was under the value of £7,000. Will not lie to restrain occupant of office, unless equitable grounds are laid. Evidence. Appeal from an order denying motion made to continue an injunction. This action was brought to determine the right of the defendant to the office of Trustee and President of the Mechanics' and Traders' Savings Institution. The People, etc., ex rel. Floyds, applt., v. Conklin, respt. N. Y. Supreme Ct., Gen'l Term, 1st Opinion by Daniels, J.; Brady, J., con- MARRIED WOMAN. Estate in her in 1834, not divested according to Act of 1832 of Pennsylvania, is affected by Act of 1848 of that State, and will pass by the wife's will. Barbara Nissley, who married Daniel K. Heisey, had an interest in her father's estate, which did not come to her until her mother's death. This interest was personal estate. Her father died in 1834, leaving real estate, which was partitioned, but her mother lived until 1872, and she herself died in 1862, having made a will in favor The husband gave of her brothers. notice, before he was called upon to elect, that he claimed the whole estate of his wife. The only allegation of any materiality in the complaint is that the defendant was elected to and held the office of a diThis claim was based on the rector of the Eighth National Bank of the City of New York, from January to ground that the estate of his wife vested December, 1871, and that the charter of at her father's death in 1834, and therethe institution prohibited its trustees from fore that the Act of 1848, known as the holding such an office. The evidence of Married Woman's Act, did not apply. the defendant was that he was elected And he further claimed one-half, there such director without his knowledge, and being no issue, if no more, under the that he went to the first meeting after Act of 1855, which gave the husband the his election, but that he never attended same rights in the property of the wife any other meeting; and that he did not as she had in his property. act as such director. In 1832, an Act was passed which forbade the payment of money due the wife without the written examination and acknowledgment of the wife. proceedings were taken. No such A previous suit had been brought against the defendant to try his right to the office of trustee, and the ground relied on was that he had been elected to the directorship. That suit was amic- Held, 1. That the wife's property was ably adjusted. The plaintiff, gave no realty until converted by the partition, . 2. That the proceeds, by the Act of Alexander wrote again, and threatened 1832, never vested in the husband. 3. When the Act of 1848 took effect the money still remained in the wife, and became subject to the interest of her husband. Nissley et al. v. Eyre, Extr. Eyre, Extr., v. Nissley et al. legal proceedings. On October 12, 1870, defendant replied: "Yours of the 10th instant received, respecting Mrs. Wilby's claim upon me. It is totally out of my power at the present time to liquidate the whole or even part of the same. I am în anticipation of a better position, and, should I be successful, Mrs. Wilby's claim shall have my first consideration. Meanwhile I shall be pleased to pay a reasonable interest on the amount. Show the letter to Mrs. Wilby, and tell her the claim has not been forgotten by me, and MARRIED WOMAN. STATUTE OF shall be liquidated at the earliest oppor LIMITATIONS. Married woman may sue for her own money lent during her husband's life time. Or a due-bill to her after her husband's death is evidence of debt to her. Forbearance to sue. Principal and agent. Action for money lent, interest and money found due upon accounts stated. Defense: Never indebted, and the Statute of Limitations. Issue thereon. Plaintiff, during the lifetime of her husband, advanced to the defendant £20. After the death of the husband, July 14, 1867, defendant gave his due-bill for the amount to the plaintiff, and she handed it to one Alexander, in payment of her husband's funeral expenses. The due-bill was not paid, and, on suit by plaintiff, in 1874, defendant insisted that the claim was barred by the Statute of Limitations. Plaintiff relied on certain letters of defendant as promises for a new consideration to pay the debt. Plaintiff had leave to add a count upon a promise to pay, in consideration of plaintiff's forbearance to sue. On September 28, 1870, Alexander I wrote to defendant: "I have to apply to you for the sum of £20 upon your I. O. U. given to Mrs. Wilby, which she has handed to me as part payment of the funeral expenses of her late husband." To this, defendant made no reply, and on October 13, 1870, tunity possible." On March 6, 1871, defendant wrote this letter, also to Alexander: "I can assure you at present it is entirely out of my you at present it is entirely out of my power to do anything. I am willing to endeavor to pay it [the debt] off by easy instalments, or I am willing to pay you any reasonable interest to let the matter remain for the present," &c. Defendant insisted, also, that there was no evidence to show that the money was not the money of the husband; and that the plaintiff had no further interest in the debt. Held, 1. That there was an indebtedness, for the money was originally advanced out of the money belonging to plaintiff; or, 2. That the due-bill to plaintiff, given after the death of her husband, was sufficient evidence of the debt. 3. That the defendant dealt with Alexander as plaintiff's agent. 4. That the letters, with the forbearance to sue, amply supported plaintiff's claim. Wilby v. Elgee. L. R., 10 Common Pl., pp. 497-501. April 15, 1875. Opinion by Lord Coleridge, C. J.; Den man, Archibald and Brett, JJ., concurring. two notes for the amount due, $1,540.15— MASTER AND SERVANT. Chairman of a public meeting not liable that is, the above $523.30, and the bal for an assault by one who seeks to press a disturbance on his direction. Joinder of issue. Action for assault. Plea, not guilty. re-ance of $1,016.85; and Peck was to be allowed to pay these notes, which had been made payable at one day after date, by monthly installments of $100, under Plaintiff was in the gallery of a hall which he paid $857.95, which sum was at a meeting. There was some disturb- credited generally on the indebtedness of ance in the gallery, near where plain- Peck. The indebtedness had been made tiff was standing, upon which defendant, up in one account of the old debt, and who was Chairman of the meeting, said: that contracted under the suretyship. "I shall be obliged to bring those men The defendants insisted that the law to the front who are making the disturb- applied unapplied payments to protect ance. Bring those men to the front." sureties; but the Court directed a verdict Plaintiff was making no disturbance, but for the plaintiff, with interest from Sepupon this he was seized and dragged tember 21, 1872, and reserved the quesacross the benches to the front of the tion of the application for the protection gallery, by a man wearing a white rib- of the sureties. On this the Court bon on his coat, and by two policemen. Plaintiff was non-suited, as defendant was not liable. Held, That there was no relation between defendant and the men who siezed plaintiff which made defendant liable for their acts. He was not liable for their mistake. Lucas v. Mason. L. R., 10 Exchequer, pp. 251-254, July 7, 1875. Opinion by Pollock, B.; Bramwell and Chasy, BB., concurring. PAYMENT. Held, That there are no rights in the sureties superior to the rights of the debtor or creditor. On writ of error, the judgment was af This action was brought to recover damages for an alleged wrongful and The law will not apply unpplied payments for the protection of sureties. Assumpsit. Plea, non-assumpsit and fraudulent sale, in bulk, of a quantity of payment. Replication, that defendants real estate in California belonging to did assume, and non-solvent. plaintiff. The sale was made by defend The defendants (below) became sure- ants K. & S., who were partners, under a ties for one Peck, January 29, 1872. On power of attorney given to S. by plainSeptember 21, 1872, there was due from tiff, which empowered him to sell, withPeck $523.30, and that sum is the amount out limitation as to the manner of sale. claimed. The plaintiff alleged that he had given When the suretyship was entered into to K. oral instructions to sell in parcels Peck owed plaintiffs (below) $2,046.85, only. Defendants' counsel requested the of which he paid before September 21, Court to charge, among other things, that 1872, $1,030. On that day they had a if defendants believed, at the time of settlement with Peck, and he gave them making the sale, that it was best for the charged. He did not, however, file the petition, affidavits, inventories, etc., contradicting the proceedings, until October, 1874. interest of plaintiff, he could not recover tracts theretofore made, etc., and on the in this action. The Court declined so to 6th day of May, 1870, he was duly discharge, save with the qualification that if the motive which operated upon them, inducing the sale, was not an honest discharge of their duty, but a desire to obtain their commission, then the action. could be maintained. Held, Error; that where an agent does an act which his duty requires, even if the impelling motive thereto is his own interest and not the duty, the act is justified, although the motive may be criti cised. Also Held, That a departure by an agent from his instructions does not, ipso fucto, constitute fraud. Price v. Keyes et al. N. Y. Court of Appeals, Sept. 21, 1875. SURETY. Liable on undertaking when the papers in the discharge of the debtor have not been duly filed. The surety must protect himself by seeing that the papers are filed. Appeal from a judgment for defendant in action on an undertaking of bail. ! Chap. 116 of the Laws of 1866, p. 234, amending the Revised Statutes, declares that these papers shall be filed and recorded within three months from the granting the discharge, or such discharge shall thereafter be inoperative, until such papers shall be duly filed and recorded. It was insisted by the defendant that he could not make the surrender until after the expiration of three months, and that, therefore, the Act of 1866 does not affect the rights of the surety as acquired by the discharge. On the trial the discharge was given in evidence, under exception. Held, 1. That it was error to admit the discharge in evidence. It was inoperative. 2. The sureties were bound to see that debtor did the necessary acts to relieve them from their obligation. Mills v. Hildreth, impleaded. N. Y. Supreme Ct., Gen'l Term, 1st TRUST. DEBTOR AND CREDITOR. A creditor who accepts a judgment to trustees for the benefit of all the credi tors must take his remedy under the judgment. Petition for rule to set aside a writ of The defendant was surety for one Rodewald, that he should appear and answer the judgment. A judgment was recovered against him on the 25th of October, 1872; the execution against his property was issued on the 7th of November, 1872, and returned unsatisfied on the 27th of November, 1872, and the execution against his person was issued on the 4th of December, 1872, and returned on the 4th of February, 1873. fieri facias. He was not arrested, and he did not In January, 1874, Henry Light, Cyrus render himself amenable to the process. Light and John Light executed a judgThis action was brought in March, 1873. ment bond to three persons "in trust for In January, 1870, Rodewald presented the payment of all creditors having at his petition, under the provisions of Part present lawful claim or demand against 2, Chap. 5, Tit. 1, Art. 5, R. S., for ex- the said" obligors. The payments were emption from arrest and imprisonment to be made in installments, and were by reason of any debts arising fron con- not to be completed until February |