or a true copy thereof, shall be filed," etc. contract of the sale of the wool on the And he claimed that he represented the ground of fraud, and demanded the wool, creditors, and that he might, by the New which the trustee refused to deliver. York Statute, as well as by the Bankrupt The wool had remained in Shackleton's Act, attack and set aside any inortgage or possession, and it did not appear that he assignment, that could be attacked by a had attempted to raise money on it. The creditor, if bankruptcy had not occurred. Judge of the County Court held that the Held, Hunt, J. 1. That, by the New bankrupt must have bought the wool York decisions, a creditor cannot attack without intending to pay for it; and, on the mortgage until his debt is in judg-appeal, the Chief Judge reversed that decision. ment. 2. That the assignee has no greater right than the creditor. 3. That, the bankrupt having no lien on the property, the Bankrupt Act transfers no lien to the assignee. In re Charles Collins. Held, 1. That there is nothing in these facts to show that Shackleton did not intend to pay for the goods. 2. In the absence of fraud the trustee must hold them. 3. Had there been any false represen U. S. Circuit Court, E. D. of New tation, the seller might have his goods. York. 12 N. B. R. Rep., pp. 379-384. Alleged fraudulent purchase by bankrupt. VII. Shackleton, the bankrupt, was Ex parte Whittaker. In re Shackleton. Opinions by James and Mellish, L. JJ., served with a summons for more than Adjudication. Excessive Claim. Stay. Costs. £50 on the 23d of November, 1874, and, by failing to comply with its requireVIII. Harris was adjudicated a bankments, he committed an act of bankrupt- rupt by the Registrar, on his refusal to cy. On the 3d of December, 1874, a pay his creditor, Cockle, about £240. petition in bankruptcy, founded on this Cockle claimed £517, but the Registrar act, was served on the bankrupt. It was reduced that sum £270. returnable on the 14th of December, 1874. On the 5th of December, 1874, bankrupt bought some wool at an auction for £61 10s. 6d., and by the conditions of the sale the wool was to be paid for on delivery. But the seller allowed Shackleton to take the wool away without paying for it. Shackleton had given no notice of any intention to contest the adjudication, and he, being absent, was, on the 14th of December, 1874, adjudicated a bankrupt. The seller of wool learned of the bank-' ruptcy proceedings on the 19th of December, 1874, and gave notice to the trustee that he claimed to rescind the Harris appealed from the adjudication, and the Lords Justices found that he owed but £110. Held, 1. That, as more than £50 is due, the adjudication may stand, but if Harris pays £110 in fourteen days, all further proceedings will be stayed. 2. That no costs will be allowed, as the proceedings were found on an excessive claim. Ex parte Harris. In re Harris. Opinion by Sir W. M. James, L. J., belonging to defendant, to the U. S. Government. The complaint alleged, and plaintiff's evidence tended to show, the performance of the services by plaintiff, as broker, at the request of the defendant's president, Daniel Drew, claiming to act for it, and an agreement to pay a commission of five per cent. upon the charter money earned, and the employment of the vessels by the government under a charter-party for one month, and as much longer as the vessels should be required by the War Department; the duration of their services, and the amount of money earned and received by defendant. Defendant moved for a non-suit, on the ground that no hiring by the defend The commissioners of highways of each town may put up in a conspicuous place at the end of any bridge, maintained at the public charge, the length of the chord ant had been shown. The motion was of which is not less than twenty-five feet, denied. It requested the court to charge this notice in large characters: "One that there was only a charter-party for dollar fine for riding or driving on this one month, which bound the government, bridge faster than a walk;" and when and that Drew, as president, had no authe chord is over fifty and less than one hundred feet: "Five dollars fine, etc.; thority to bind the defendant in any conand when the chord is over one hundred tract with plaintiff for commissions. A and less than two hundred feet: "Ten verdict was rendered for plaintiff for the dollars fine, etc.; " and when the length full amount claimed. is over two hundred feet, "Twenty-five dollars fine, etc." Amending Sec. 122, Art. 6, Tit. 1, Chap. 16, part 1, of Rev. St. Whoever shall ride or drive faster than a walk, on any bridge upon which said notices are placed, shall forfeit, for every offence, the sum specified in the Held, No error; that defendant, by the acceptance of the charter-party, and the receipt of moneys under it, not only ratified the act of Drew in entering into it, but that those acts furnished a presumption that Drew, as president, was authorized to enter into the charter-party for it, and to take and use all the customary notice. BROKER. Compensation. Authority of officer to employ broker. Ratification." Presumption. Extent to which commissions may be demanded. This action was brought to recover commissions for services rendered by R. S., the original plaintiff, as broker, in securing the hiring of certain steamboats, vessels, one of which is the hiring and compensating of brokers. Also held, That it was not error to refuse to charge that the plaintiff must be limited to five per cent. on the earnings. for one month, as the commissions were to be on the total earnings. A charter-party may be obligatory on one party, and optional with another. Sturgis, Admtr., etc., v. New Jersey The umpire received evidence of such prospective profits under exception that they were too remote. And he found that the land on which the reservoir was built would be valueless for any other purpose, and that mills would in time. inevitably have been built on the land. taken by defendant. He allowed £3,153 for such profits. The company applied to the Queen's Bench for a rule nisi to set aside the award, on the ground that the umpire had awarded prospective profits for sup plying water; but the court refused to grant the rule, being apparently of the opinion that the question ought to be decided on an action to enforce the award. The defendant, in June, 1867, bought He was then a goods from plaintiff. minor, but the goods were necessary to him. In 1869 he promised to pay for the goods, and in 1873 the suit was brought. The defence was, under Sec. 91 of the Code, that the promise was not in writing. Held, 1. That the contract of an infant is not void, but voidable. 2. That a cause of action does not ac crue until it can be enforced. 3. That the promise is good at common law, the infant having waived his privilege. 4. That the Code has not changed the law in this regard. Halsey v. Reid. N. Y. Supreme Court, Gen'l T., 3d Opinion by James, J.; Learned, P.J., CORPORATIONS. NEW YORK. Companies for the storage, conveyance, and transportation of petroleum and other oils, may be organized by three or more persons, in compliance with the Act Extending Act of February 17, 1848. cieties, shall not be within the provisions of the act passed for the prevention of cruelty to animals, provided the pigeon, on being shot, shall be killed as soon as it can be captured or taken. Passed April 13, 1875. CRUELTY TO CHILDREN. NEW YORK. Five or more citizens of this State, resi II. A corporation of this State doing business in other States or countries may acquire, hold, and convey therein, with the consent thereof, real estate requisite dent herein, may associate themselves tofor the convenient transaction of its busi-gether for the purpose of preventing ness, or may purchase, hold, own, and dis- cruelty to children, provided that one of pose of stock in corporations of other the justices of the Supreme Court of the States or countries owning such real estate district in which the society will operate in conformity to the laws thereof; but shall consent. this act shall not be construed to authorize the holding, etc., of any stock other than that which shall represent real estate necessary for the transaction of the business of the corporation. Amending Chap. 146, Laws of 1872. COSTS. Security for. NEW YORK. The sureties on the undertaking must justify in $500 each. Amending Sec. 6, Tit. 2, Chap. 10. CRIMINAL LAW. NEW YORK. an Attempts to commit certain offences. Attempting to commit which is punishable by death, or by imoffence prisonment for life, shall be punished by confinement in a State prison not exceed ing ten years. Passed Feb. 20, 1875. which shall not exceed fifty thousand dolMay hold real estate, the income of lars. May make complaint to courts and magistrates having jurisdiction in laws relating to or affecting children; and all magistrates, constables, sheriffs, and police officers shall aid and assist the society in enforcing all laws which are now or which may be enacted, relating to or affecting children. No association shall use the name or style, or substantially the same, of any previously-existing incorporated society of this State. Passed April 21, 1875. DEED Of property reserving mining rightsmaking compensation for injury to grantee. To what extent minerals may be taken out. William Stott, in December, 1861, conveyed to the trustee for the West Houghton Manufacturing Co. certain land, for the express purpose that a cotton mill and other buildings might be erected on it, which were to be kept in repair as a security for the rent-charge reserved. Stott, in the conveyance, reserved to himself, and his lessees, all mines and seams. of coal, ironstone, and other minerals, with "full liberty, power, and authority, etc.. to search for, get, win, take, cart, and carry away the same, and sell or convert The charter-party had the following clause: to his or their own use the said excepted continued until 8 P. M., when the labormines, veins, and seams of coal, cannel, ers stopped. They began next at 4 A. and ironstone, and other mines and M., and finished at 8 A. M. minerals, or any of them, or any part or parts thereof, at pleasure, and to do all things necessary for effectuating all or "Freight to be paid in cash, loading and any of the aforesaid purposes, but with- discharging the ship as fast as the steamout entering upon the surface of the said er can work, but a minimum of seven premises, or any part thereof, so that days to be allowed merchants, and ten compensation in money may be made by days on deraurrage, over and above the him or them for all damage that shall be said lying days, at £25 per day." done to the erections on the said plot, by the exercise of any of the said excepted liberties, or in consequence thereof." In 1874, the plaintiff, who had bought the mill property, filed a bill, praying for an account and payment of damages, and for an injunction to restrain defendants from working any coals and minerals so as to cause any injury to the plaintiff. Defendants had bought the minerals reserved, and had lately begun to work coal mines under or adjacent to the mill. The Master of the Rolls dismissed the bill, holding that the deed authorized the mining. And this appeal was taken. Held, That by the terms of the deed the mine owner was at liberty to remove the whole of the minerals, at his pleasure, notwithstanding the buildings might be injured, he making compensation to the surface-owner for any damage caused to him. Aspden v. Sutton. L. R., 10 Chancery App., pp. 394–404. Opinion by Sir G. Mellish, L. J. April 23, 1875. DEMURRAGE. The questions to be determined were: 1. Whether "lying days" were to be construed as running days, or working days; and, 2. Whether, when a ship was detained for a part of the day, the demurrage shall be for said part of or for the whole day. Held, 1. That the "lying days" in the clause meant "working days." 2. That the demurrage must be for the whole day, since no division of a day in demurrage is known. The Commerciel Steamship Co. v. Boul ton. L. R., 10 Exchequer, | p. 346–349. DEFENCE To action on bond of indemnity when the Plaintiff sued defendant on a bond of indemnity against a certain claim. More than six years after such claim had accrued, plaintiff was sued. He gave defendant notice of the pendency of the "Lying days" construed. A part of day action, and defendant offered to take the not considered in—whole day allowed. defence on himself, but plaintiff would Defendants chartered the ship of the not consent, unless defendant agreed that plaintiffs. She arrived at London on he would not plead the Statute of LimiTuesday evening at 5 P. M., but the tim. tations, which defendant refused to do. ber of the defendants was in the way, An order was then served on plaintiff to and she did not reach her berth until 8 show cause why defendant should not be A. M. on the next day. The work of dis- permitted to defend the action. The charging the cargo began at once, and plaintiff opposed the motion, and it was |