« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
lawfully purchase promissory notes, as well as dis- his death. Held, that in either case it was a gift count such paper. The State law in question is inter vivos, and that the title to the notes vested in substantially the same as the Federal act. The the donee at the instant they were assigned and depower is “to carry on the business of banking by livered as aforesaid. The court said: “The condiscounting bills, notes and other evidences of tingency of death simply postponed the beneficial debt,” “by buying and selling gold and other enjoyment. It was an event that must happen, and bullion, foreign coins and bills of exchange,” etc. did not render the gift conditional. By the asThe court, quoting and approving McLeod on Bank- signment and delivery all control over the notes ing, said: “In the language of the money market it passed from Meriwether, Sr., and the gift became is usual to estimate the value of money by the dis- irrevocable. In Ray v. Simmons, 11 R. I. 266; S. count or profit it yields, and to buy or purchase a C., 23 Am. Rep. 447, the facts are that B. deposited debt is always in commerce termed to discount it.” in bank certain moneys in his own name as trustee In Tracy v. Tallmage, 18 Barb. 456, it is said: “To for R. B. gave the bank book to R., who returned discount includes to buy, for discounting at most is it to B., in whose control it remained. In an equity but another term for buying at a discount." See suit by R. against the administrator of B., claiming Johnson v. National Bank of Gloversville, 74 N. Y. the deposit, it was held that the trust was com329; S. C., Browne's Nat. Bank Cas. 302. Of au- pletely constituted, and the fact that it was volunthorities holding a different doctrine, Niagara Co. tary was no reason for refusing it. In Ellis v. Secor, Bank v. Baker, 15 Ohio St. 63; Farmers', etc., Bank 31 Mich. 185; S. C., 18 Am. Rep. 178, the facts v. Baldwin, 23 Minn. 198, the court said the decis- are: On a slate by the bedside of E., who was found ions were upon violations of positive law, and are dead, was, in her writing and signed by her, “I distinguishable from this case. The doctrine thus wish Dr. L. to take possession of all, both personal, pronounced is in harmony with Pape v. Capitol Bank real, and mixed. I am so sick I believe I shall die; of Topeka, 20 Kans. 440; 27 Am. Rep. 183; Browne's look in valise." In valise was found a memorandum Nat. Bk. Cas. 238; First Nat. Bk. of North Benning- written by her, directing Dr. L. to take all of her ton v. Toron of Bennington, Browne's Nat. Bk. Cas. property. In the opinion it is said: “We think it 437; but is opposed to the dissenting opinion of clear that Rachel Hill did all that she could to creTappan, J., in Nat. Bk. of Gloversville v. Wells, 15 ate a gift causa mortis, and fully intended it, and Hun, 51; 8. C., Browne's Nat. Bk. Cas. 333; to First that the written declaration should prevail as a valid Nat. Bk. of Rochester v. Pierson, 24 Minn. 140; 31 appointment to the uses indicated as fully as if there Am. Rep. 341; Thomp. Nat. Bk. Cas. 637; and to had been a manual delivery of the securities.” So Lazear v. Nat. Union Bk. of Baltimore, Browne's Nat. far as the act of delivery is necessary to complete Bk. Cas. 261, besides the cases mentioned by the the gift, the law is the same as to gifts causa mortis court in the principal case. In the case last cited, and inter vivos. A case in point is Hill v. Stevenson, in the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the court said: 63 Me. 364; S. C., 18 Am. Rep. 231. M., having “While we do not mean to say that a National bank money on deposit in bank, handed her book to C., may not invest its surplus capital in notes, we are at the same time saying to him that she gave the of opinion that it has no authority to use such sur- money in that book to H. and I., and requested him plus funds, as may remain on hand from day to day, to keep the book, and after her decease divide the for the purpose of buying notes” (citing the Minne- money between H. and I. It was held to be a sota cases). “If any other construction were given valid gift of the money on deposit to H. and I. to such a transaction as this the intention of Con- In Minor v. Rogers, 40 Conn. 512; 8. C., 16 Am. gress to prohibit National banks from buying and Rep. 69, A. deposited in bank money in her selling notes would be entirely defeated, and those own name as trustee for W., but during her life institutions would be at perfect liberty to decline drew out the money at different times. A. died making discounts for their customers, and afterward leaving a will in which no mention was made of W. to buy up the very paper which had been offered or the deposit. In the suit by W. against the executor for discount and refused, at such price as the banks of A., it was held that the deposit was a complete might choose to give." This important question gift that the depositor could not revoke. See, also, ought to be settled, as to National banks, by the Camp's Appeal, 36 Conn. 88; S. C., 4 Am. Rep. 39; Federal Supreme Court.
Gardner v. Merritt, 32 Md. 78; S. C., 3 Am. Rep. 115; Southerland v. Southerland's Adm'r, 5 Bush,
591." In Meriwether v. Morrison, Kentucky Court of
To same effect, Giddings v. Giddings' Adm'r, Appeals, September 28, 1880, 10 Rep. 661, the de- 51 Vt. 227; 8. C., 31 Am. Rep. 882. ceased, a few weeks before his death, indorsed upon certain notes of which he was the owner, the words: In Steinman v. Henderson, Pennsylvania Supreme “I transfer the within note as a gift to Miss Agnes Court, May 17, 1880, 10 Rep. 617, it was held that Morrison." The evidence would authorize the find- a husband cannot subject his wife's rea to lien ing of fact that the deceased then placed the notes even for necessary repairs without her authority or in the hands of A. in trust, to be delivered to Miss consent. The court said: “It is essential to the vaMorrison, at his death, or that they were so handed lidity of a mechanic's lien against the separate estate to A. and were placed by him in a desk of deceased of a married woman that the claim should set forth and remained under the control of deceased until that the work was done and the materials furnished with her authority and consent; in other words, revocation of warrant of extradition; infant's rethat she or someone authorized by her contracted pudiation of executed contract for services; distherefor. Her property is not subject to a lien for qualification of juror for opinion; leap-year; action work done or materials furnished under a contract by wife for procuring husband to abandon her;
liawith her husband unless by her authority, nor can he bility of husband for wife's funeral expenses; meincumber her real estate without her consent, even chanics' lien in favor of architect; obstruction of for the purpose of making necessary repairs.' The surface-water by municipal corporation; action by same was held in Flannery v. Rohrmayer, 46 Conn. employee against co-employee for negligence; neg558; S.C., 33 Am. Rep. 36, where the wife knew of iigent communication of fire; partnership — share the erection, while it was in progress, and did not of profits for services; real property-ice in pond; object to it. The court there said: “She was not a sale of article for unlawful use; keeping open barparty to the contract out of which the debt origi- ber-shop on Sunday; surety for faithful performnated. It was the debt of her husband alone, and ance — change of principal's duties; taxation of she was under no obligation to pay it. The fact capital stock and shares; exemption of bank buildthat she knew of the work and made no objection ing from taxation. to it does not make it her debt, and does not charge The following cases are worthy of especial note: her land with its payment. Her husband having a Action.— An action of tort for negligence or delife estate in the land might well contract for an ceit lies against the personal representatives of the improvement which would make it more valuable deceased wrong-doer. Tichenor v. Hayes, 12 Vroom, to him, and her knowledge and silence, without an 193; p. 186. active participation in the contract, and with no AGENCY. — An agent appointed to sell a horse is resulting benefit to her or her estate, are insufficient not thereby authorized to warrant. Cooley v. Perto impose upon her any liability. But it is claimed rine, 12 Vroom, 322; p. 210. that the statute justifies this decree. That provides BAIL.— In an action on a bail bond for the apthat a lien attaches where services are performed pearance of an indicted person, it is a good defense 'by virtue of an agreement with or by consent of that the person was in prison in another county in the owner of the land upon which such building is the same State, on conviction for another offense. erected.' It is true the language of the statute Cooper v. State, 5 Tex. Ct. App. 215; p. 571. seems to be broad enough to include the estate of BURIAL GROUNDS.— The Legislature has a right the wife under the circumstances of this case, if to authorize a municipality to remove the remains of mere knowledge and silence constitute a consent. the dead from cemeteries. The right of burial in a We think they do not. It has never been the policy church-yard is a privilege enjoyable only so long as of our law to subject the wife's real estate to the the ground continues a church-yard, and is subject payment of the husband's debts, and the tendency to any right of the church to abandon it; and one of modern legislation is to extend rather than con- who is merely a pew-holder, or has relatives buried tract this immunity. If the statute is to be inter- in the yard, and has no contract relation with the preted as including the real estate of the wife in church, cannot maintain the objection that an act cases where she is not a party to the contract, and of the Legislature authorizing the removal of the where it does not appear to be for her benefit or for dead from such church-yard impairs the obligation the benefit of her estate, then it works a radical of a contract. Craig v. First Presbyterian Church of change in the law relating to the property of mar- | Pittsburgh, 88 Penn. St. 42; p. 417. ried women, and subjects it to the payment of the CARRIER.— A passenger on defendant's railway, debts of the husband, thereby and to that extent finding no vacant seats in the ordinary coaches, the repealing prior laws on that subject. We cannot seats being occupied either by passengers or their believe that such was the intention of the Legisla- baggage, proceeded to a drawing-room car, owned ture, and must therefore hold that such a construc- by a private individual, but forming part of the tion is inadmissible.” To the same effect, Lauer v. train, and regularly run with it by contract with the Bandou, 43 Wis. 556; S. C., 28 Am. Rep. 571. defendant, and there took a seat. When called on
for extra fare for that seat, he refused, announcing
his readiness to go into the other cars if a seat were THIRTY-SECOND AMERICAN REPORTS. provided for him there. Thereupon the porter of
the drawing-room car, employed by its owner, atTHIS volume contains cases selected from 61 Ala- tempted to eject him. Held, that the defendant bama, 90 Illinois, 65, 66 Indiana, 50 Iowa, 41 was liable for this assault.
Thorpe v. N. Y. C. & Michigan, 12 Vroom, 76 New York, 34 Ohio State, H. R. R. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 402; p. 325. 88 Pennsylvania State, 11, 12 South Carolina, 6, 7 In an action against a common carrier for failure Baxter, 5, 6, 7 Texas Court Appeals, 50, 51 Texas, to receive and carry live stock in pursuance of its 30 Grattan, 46, 47 Wisconsin. It has notes on the agreement, it is a good defense that it was prevented following subjects: Removal of remains from burial from fulfillment solely by the armed violence of its grounds; destroying private property to stop fire; late employees, whose wages had been reduced, and contract by letter; evasion of statutes; larceny of who had quit work and struck for higher wages. paraphernalia; reservation of timber in deed; du- Pittsburg, Cincinnati & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Holloress; evidence of declarations of testator to show well, 65 Ind. 188; p. 63. his mental condition; who is “head of a family”; CONSTITUTIONAL Law.— The constitutional prohibition of agricultural leases for a longer period, berth was offered him in another car, which he dethan twelve years cannot be evaded by the execut- clined. In an action for damages for breach of ing of two leases at the same time and for the same contract, held, that he was entitled to a continuous consideration, one for eight, and the other for passage in the same car and berth, or in one equally twelve years, the latter to commence at the expira- safe, comfortable and convenient; and that it was tion of the first term; but both are void; and a no defense that the defendant simply rented the former lease, surrendered in consideration of the cars to the railway companies for the use of passenexecution of these, is not reinstated.
gers. Pullman Palace Car Company v. Taylor, 65 Barnes, 76 N. Y. 301; p. 306.
Ind. 153; p. 57. The destruction of private property by the fire Costs.— A judgment of the Federal Supreme department of a city, to stay a conflagration, is not Court against the State of Wisconsin, for costs in a such an act as will sustain an action for damages criminal action, does not constitute a just claim against the city at common law, and is not a taking against the State within the statute conferring on of private property for public use, within the sense the State courts jurisdiction of actions against the of the Constitution; and if any remedy is provided State. Noyes v. State, 46 Wis. 250; p. 710. by law it must be pursued in the defined mode. CRIMINAL LAW.-- Pushing open a closed but unKeller v. City of Corpus Christi, 50 Tex. 614; p. fastened transom, that swings horizontally on hinges 613.
over an outer door of a dwelling-house, and enterThe Legislature cannot create new subjects of ex- ing thereat, constitutes burglary. T'immons v. State, emption from execution, in addition to those enu- 34 Ohio St. 426; p. 376. merated in the Constitution. Duncan v. Barnett, Where by law the death penalty cannot be in11 S. C. 333; p. 476.
flicted for a given offense committed by a person of CONTRACT. — In consideration of the grant of a less than seventeen years of age, the burden of proof right of way over his land, the defendant agreed by showing his non-age is on the defendant. Ake v. parol to furnish the plaintiff for life with a free pass State, 6 Tex. Ct. App. 398; p. 586. for himself and his family over its road. The pass On the trial of an indictment for murder, the was given for a while, and then refused. In an ac- prosecution was allowed to prove that the examintion for breach of the contract, held, that the meas- ing magistrate had compelled the prisoner to make ure of damages was the value of such pass, to be his footprints in an aslı heap, and they corresponded approximated as closely as the nature of the case with footprints found at the scene of the crime. would admit. Erie & Pittsburgh Railroad Co. v. Held, no error.
State, 7 Tex. Ct. App. 245; Douthel, 88 Penn. St. 243; p. 451.
Defendant offered, by letter sent through the A white man and a colored woman, married acmail, to engage the plaintiff in his employment, cording to the forms of law in Mississippi, may be stating terms, and asking for a reply by return mail. indicted for living together as husband and wife, The plaintiff received the letter on the 22d of under the laws of Tennessee. State v. Bell, 7 Baxt. March, and next day gave a postal card, accepting 12; p. 549. the offer, to a boy, to be mailed, but he neglected K., a negro man, and M., a white woman, domito mail it until the 25th. Held, that defendant was ciled in Virginia, went to the District of Columbia not bound by his offer, nor was he bound after re- and were there legally and regularly married, and ceiving the postal card to notify her that it was not after remaining there ten days returned to their in time, nor was he estopped by his mere subsequent home in Virginia, and continued to reside there as intention to accept her services and an unsuccessful husband and wife. The law of Virginia prohibits attempt to see her. Maclay v. Harvey, 90 Ill. 525; marriages between white persons and negroes. Held,
that the parties were liable to indictment in Virginia Plaintiffs intrusted a claim for collection to a mer- for lewd and lascivious cohabitation. Kinney v. cantile and collecting agency, taking a receipt con- Commonwealth, 30 Gratt. 858; p. 690. ditioned that the claim was to be transmitted to an The defendant was indicted under a statute makattorney for collection or adjustment, at the risk | ing it a misdemeanor to employ female waiters in a and on the account of the plaintiffs, and signing a drinking saloon. She had employed such waiters similar agreement in the defendants' books. Held, before the passage of the act, and after the enactthat these instruments constituted the contract, and ment she discharged them and entered into partnerthe defendants were not liable for the attorney's acts ship with them. Held, an evasion of the statute for or default, in the absence of proof of gross negli- which the indictment would lie. Walter v. Commongence in selecting him. Sanger v. Dun, 47 Wis. wealth, 88 Penn. St. 137; p. 429. 615; p. 789.
Keeping open a barber shop on Sunday is not an The plaintiff purchased of the defendant, a sleep- indictable nuisance. State v. Lorry, 7 Baxt. 95; p. ing car company, at Indianapolis, a ticket purport- 555. ing to entitle him to accommodations in a desig- Perjury cannot be predicated of an affidavit sworn nated sleeping car, in a berth to be pointed out by before a notary public professing to act in the city the conductor, thence to New York city. A certain of New York, but who was a non-resident of the berth was accordingly assigned him, and designated State at that time and at the time of his appointon the ticket, but at Pittsburgh the car was de- ment. Lambert v. People, 76 N. Y. 220; p. 293. tached, and a different and less safe and comfortable One may be convicted of rape on a woman who
failed to resist because of imbecility. State v. Ath- and the same is hereby made a condition of the inerton, 50 Iowa, 189; p. 134.
surance and a warranty on the part of the assured;" The objection that jurors on a criminal trial did and the policy made the application a part of it not understand the English language is waived if and a warranty. Held, that the warranty was only not specifically taken at the trial. Yanez v. State, such as was described in the application, and em6 Tex. Ct. App. 429; p. 591.
braced only such statements as were material to the On the trial of an indictment for larceny where risk and known to the insured to be false. Redman six witnesses were examined on behalf of the peo- v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 47 Wis. 89; p. 751. ple and three on behalf of the defendant, it was JURISDICTION. — Where a petition for letters of held error for the court to limit the arguments of administration was presented to the clerk of the surcounsel to five minutes each. White v. The People, rogate, in the surrogate's absence, and the clerk 90 Ill. 117; p. 12.
filled up a blank appointment signed and left with On a criminal trial it seems that a physician, who him by the surrogate, without evidence outside the has made a post-mortem examination, may be com- petition of the death of the alleged decedent, the pelled to testify concerning its results and his opin- surrogate having no knowledge of and never acting ions derived therefrom. Summers v. State, 5 Tex. upon the petition, the letters are void, and do not Ct. App. 365; p. 573.
protect a debtor who in good faith pays his debt to DEED.— A deed of lands reserved the timber, the the administrator named therein. Roderigas v. East grantee stipulating that the grantor should have two River Savings Institution, 76 N. Y. 316; p. 309. .years to remove it. Held, that it might be removed MANDAMUS. — A citizen who desires to inspect after that time. Irons v. Webb, 12 Vroom, 203; p. recommendations filed with the collector of taxes 193.
as the basis for issuing pending liquor licenses, in EVIDENCE. — The rule that the execution of a order to ascertain whether the provisions of the law writing must be proved by the subscribing witness have been observed, and to secure obedience to the is not modified by the recent legislation making law, is entitled to mandamus to compel the exhibiparties competent witnesses. Henly v. Henning, 7 tion of such letters. Ferry v. Williams, 12 Vroom, Baxt. 524; p. 568.
332; p. 219. A deed, executed by.a grantor making her mark, MARRIAGE. – A wife may maintain an action for she and the attesting witnesses being dead, is the loss of the society and companionship of her well proved by evidence of the handwriting of the husband, against one who wrongfully and maliciously attesting witnesses, with other confirmatory evi- induces and procures her husband to abandon or dence, and proof of the grantor's signature is not
send her away.
Westlake v. Westlake, 34 Ohio St. necessary. Lyons v. Holmes, 11 s. C. 429; p. 483. 621; p. 397.
EXEMPTION.— Under a statute exempting prop- A threat by a husband, conveyed through a payee, erty from distress, a widow, keeping a boarding that he will poison himself unless his wife signs & house, with a female friend residing with her, and note as surety for him, by means whereof she is infemale servants, besides the boarders, is the “head duced so to sign, does not amount to duress such as of a family.” Race v. Oldridge, 90 Ill. 250; p. 27. will avoid her note. Wright v. Remington, 13
EXTRADITION.— A citizen and resident of one Vroom, 48; p. 180. State, charged in a requisition with the constructive A married woman held in her maiden name real commission of crime in another State, from which estate which belonged to her before marriage. Repin fact he has never fled, is not a fugitive from jus- resenting herself as a widow and concealing her tice, and the determination of the governor as to marriage, she applied for a loan thereon, and exe the sufficiency of the facts alleged is not conclusive. cuted a mortgage therefor in her maiden name, Jones v. Leonard, 50 Iowa, 106; p. 116.
without her husband joining in it, the other party INFANCY.-An infant cannot repudiate his exe-being ignorant of her marriage. Held, that in equity cuted contract to render services at a stipulated she could not avoid the mortgage and retain the price, and recover quantum meruit, where the other money. Patterson v. Lawrence, 90 Ill. 174; p. 22. party did not know of his infancy, and the contract A husband and his adult son went together to an was reasonable. Spicer v. Earl, 41 Mich. 191; p. undertaker and together ordered a coffin and car152.
riages for the funeral of the wife and mother. INSURANCE. One who effected insurance cover- Nothing was said as to who was to be charged. ing his own goods and goods stored with him, and Held, that the husband was liable. Sears v. Giddy, collected the insurance money, is liable to the owner 41 Mich. 590; p. 168. of such stored goods for his share, although he did MASTER AND SERVANT. - An action will lie in not request or know of the insurance, and did not favor of one employee against & co-employee for ratify it before the payment of the loss. Snow v. physical injury caused to the former by the latter's Carr, 61 Ala. 363; p. 3.
negligence in the same undertaking. Hinds v. An application for fire insurance contained a state- Overacker, 66 Ind. 547; p. 114. ment that “the foregoing is a just, full and true MECHANICS' LIEN.— Under a Mechanics' Lien Act, exposition of all the facts and circumstances in re- giving a lien to any person who shall perform labor, gard to the condition, situation, value and risk of etc., a supervising architect may enforce a lien. the property to be insured, so far as the same are Stryker v. Cassidy, 76 N. Y. 50; p. 262. known to the applicant and are material to the risk, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. – A city charter provided for the exercise by ordinance of the power to cases to deliver letters at the nearest post-office, employ legal counsel for the assistance of the com- which was G. Held, that the notice was regular, mon council, etc. No such ordinance was passed, although it never reached the indorser, and although but the mayor employed attorneys to give an opin- she had changed her residence before the mailing. ion regarding municipal matters, which was read at Central National Bank v. Adams, 11 S. C. 452; p. 495. a meeting of the common council and acted on. NUISANCE.- A livery-stable in a city is not necesHeld, that the attorneys could not recover of the sarily a nuisance, and so where one has been burned city for their services in giving the opinion. City down an injunction will not be granted against reof Bryan v. Page, 51 Tex. 532; p. 637.
building and using it, but only against its use in a In the absence of statute a county is not liable manner proved to have been a nuisance. Shiras v. for damage by failure to repair its public bridges. Olinger, 50 Iowa, 571; p. 138. Wood v. Tipton County, 7 Baxt. 112; p. 561.
REAL PROPERTY.– A sale of ice, already formed Defendant's charter authorized its officers to blow in a pond, is a valid sale of personal property. Higup any building on fire, or any other building which gins v. Kusterer, 41 Mich. 318; p. 160. it might deem hazardous, and gave the owners a SALE.— In an action for the price of a billiard right to damages therefor. The officers, to arrest a table it is no defense that it may be used for gamfire, blew up a building, and by reason of the ex- bling, unless it was sold under a contract that it plosion the plaintiff's building on the opposite side was so to be used; and knowledge of such intended of the street was shattered. Held, that he had no use will not be inferred from the fact that it was cause of action, although the injury was the natural accompanied by a pool set and 'rules for its use. and probable result of the explosion. People ex rel. Brunswick v. Valleau, 50 Iowa, 120; p. 119. Brisbane v. City of Buffalo, 76 N. Y. 558; p. 337. SCHOOL.— A school teacher is not authorized to
A municipal corporation is not liable for damage inflict excessive chastisement; nor to chastise excaused by the accumulation of surface-water on city cept for a specific offense which the pupil underlots, when owing solely to the insufficient size of stands; nor to chastise a pupil for refusing to sewers, which are not defective in construction nor study a branch from which his father had excused out of repair. Fair v. City of Philadelphia, 88 Penn. him. State v. Mizner, 50 Iowa, 145; p. 128. St. 309; p. 455.
STATUTE. — The statute of 21 Henry III, concernThe chief of police of a city is an officer of the ing leap-year, makes no provision as to how the 28th State, and is not subject to removal by the mayor, and 29th of February shall be counted in computing and the mayor is liable in damages to him in a civil a number of days less than a year; the 29th of Febaction for such removal. Burch v. Hardwicke, 30 ruary is an independent day in such computations; Gratt. 24; p. 640.
and so service of a summons on the 25th of FebruNEGLIGENCE.— In an action against a railway ary, for a term commencing March 6th, is a valid company, by the owner of real estate adjoining the ten days' notice. Helphenstine v. Vincennes National track, for the burning of his house by sparks from Bank, 65 Ind. 582; p. 86. a locomotive, it being found that the fire was com- SURETY.— A surety signed an appeal bond, and municated by reason of a defective spark arrester, intrusted it to the principal on condition that it held, that the plaintiff might recover, although the should also be signed by another whose name apsparks entered the house through an open window peared in the body of the bond as a co-surety. The in an unoccupied room, the plaintiff not being principal did not procure such additional signature, aware of the defect in the locomotive. Louisville, but erased that name and delivered the bond. Held, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. v. Richardson, 66 that the surety was not liable. Allen v. Marney, 65 Ind. 43; p. 94.
Ind. 398; p. 73. A locomotive engineer, killed by remaining upon A bond was executed for the faithful performance his engine when a collision was imminent, and tak- of duty by an “assistant clerk” in a bank. He was ing measures to stop his train, is not chargeable employed as a messenger. Afterward he was prowith contributory negligence as matter of law, al-moted to the next higher clerkship, and still later though he might have escaped injury by leaving his to the position of book-keeper. In the last position post. Cottrill v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. he was stationed near the money-drawer, and from Co., 47 Wis. 634; p. 796.
time to time abstracted money from it, and made A common seaman is bound to obey orders, and false entries to conceal his crime. The last promoif he receives an injury in obeying an order mani- tion was without the knowledge of his sureties on festly perilous he is not chargeable with contribu- the bond. Held, that they were not liable for the tory negligence. Thompson v. Hermann, 47 Wis. embezzlement. Manufacturers' National Bank of 602; p. 784.
Newark v. Dickerson, 12 Vroom, 448; p. 237. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS.- - A notary, having no TAXATION. — Stockholders in a moneyed corporaprecise knowledge of an indorser's residence, but tion are liable to taxation on their shares, although being informed that she resided at A., mailed notice the capital stock has also paid a tax, City of Memof protest to her at that place in care of the maker.phis v. Ensley, 6 Baxt. 553; p. 532. She resided midway between A. and G., but had Under a statute exempting from taxation a lot of got her letters at G. There was no post-office at A., ground for the use of a private banking institution, but it was the duty of the postal agents in such | the bank is not entitled to exemption of such parts