Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

221.

the plaintiff, without finding that the defendant knew Appeal from Fleming circuit court. the falsity of the statement which was the basis of the

Lincoln & Stephens and O'Hara & Bryan, for action, yet the court expressly held that the action to recover back, would lie, under the circumstahces.12

appellant, Barney & Smith Manuf'g Co.; Wm. J. In an early English case, "the late husband of the Hendrick, for appellee, Theodore Hart, Receiver, defendant had effected a policy on his life in the Argus

etc. Assurance Company. He died in October, 1840, leav- Pryor, C. S., delivered the opinion of the ing the defendant his executrix, not having (by mis

court. take), paid the quarterly premium on the policy, which became due on the 3d of September, preceding.

In the month of March, in the year 1877, appelIn November, the ordinary of the office informed two lant, the Barney & Smith Manufacturing Compaof the directors that the policy had lapsed by reason ny, doing business in the state of Ohio, entered of the non-payment of the premium, and one of them into the contract with one A. P. Berthoud to conwrote upon the policy the word “apsed.” In Febru

struct for him the two cars in controversy, being ary, 1841, the defendant, as executrix, applied at the office for, and received from the same, payments of the

at the price of $2,400 payable iu installments. The sum secured on the policy. The directors had forgot

sum of $1,400 was paid when the contract was ten that the policy had lapsed. The action was sus

made, and Berthoud's note executed for the baltained.13

ance, which seems, or the greater part of it, never It appears that in all these cases stated at length

to have been paid. By the terms of the contract above, the full amount was recovered.

FRANK C. HADDOCK,

it was agreed that, on the faiMure of the purchaser Oshkosh. Wis.

(Berthoud) to pay the deferred installments, the company (now appellant) should have the right

to resume possession of the property, and sell it 12 Hartford Live Stock Ins. Co. v. Matthews, 102 Mas'.

for the payment of the debt; and, in the event it 13 Kelly v. Solari, 9 Mees. & W. 54; See also, N. Y. Ins. failed to pay, Berthoud was still liable to the apCo. v. Statham, 93 U. S. 24; Dermoit v. Jones, 2 Wall. 1; pellant therefor. It was also stipulated tbat po Pearson v. Lord, 6 Mass. 81; Stuart v. Sears, 119 id. 143;

right or title to the cars should pass from or vest Welch v. Goodwin, 123 Id. 71; Mer. Ins. Co. v. Abbott, 131 id. 397.

in Berthoud until all the purchase money was paid, and on full payment, and not before, the title to the cars, and the absolute property and

possession thereof, should vest in Berthoud, the RAILROAD COMPANIES MORTGAGE

party of the second part. LIEN-CONTRACT_CONFLICT OF LAWS.

The cars were constructed for the purpose of

being used on the Covington, Flemingsburg & BARNEY & SMITH M'F'G. CO. V. HART, RE- Pound Gap Railroad, in the state of Kentucky; CEIVER, ETC.*

and when finished by the company were delivered

to Berthoud, and by him brought to Kentucky, Court of Appeals of Kentucky, September 16,1886. and placed upon and used on that railroad. A

man by the name of Quintard had contracted with 1. Railroad Companies-Mortgage-Lien-Contract -Conflict of Laus.-Where half of the purchase price

this Pound Gap Railroad Company to construct of railroad cars had been paid, and notes given for the

and equip several miles of the road, and in the balance, and the cars removed from one State to settlement of the accounts of Quintard, the value another, and placed upon the road of the company of these cars were charged to him as a part of the under its contract with a party to construct and equip equipment of said road, and credited to Berthoud. certain parts of the road at a fixed price, a contract

A short time after the cars had been placed on (that on the failure of the purchaser to pay the deferred payments the company should bave the right to

the road, many of the laborers and contractors resume possession of the property, and sell it for the

who had worked on this road in its construction, payment of the debt, and, in event it failed to pay the

and who had not been paid by Quintard for their purchaser, was still to be liable, and that no right or services, instituted actions against him and the title to the cars should pass to the purchaser until the railroad company in the Fleming circuit court, whole was paid) made by the builder of the cars with and obtained general attachments, that were the agent of the railroad contractor is in the nature of

levied on the property of the company and Quina mortgage,and creates a lien upon the cars as between

tard, including the cars in controversy; the road the parties; but the title to the cars passes to the agent of the contractor, and the lien of the builder is

being then operated by Berthoud, who was, as not good against innocent purchasers and creditors,

the proof clearly indicates, the mere agent of unless the contract is filed for record according to the

Quintard, the original contractor. The actions laws of the State where the cars are taken.

ost Quintard were consolidated, and pro

ceeded to trial under the name of Mason. Shanna. 2. — Record.—The lien of the builder for the purchase price of cars made in another State, and

han & Co. v. Corington, Flemingsburg & Pound brought into the State of Kentucky, is governed by the

Gap Railroad Company and Quintard. A receiver laws of Kentucky, and is good against creditors and

was appointed, who afterwards resigned, and aninnocent purchasers only when recorded as required

other substituted, and, by an agreement with by the law of that State.

each, Berthoud was permitted to operate the road,

with the cars upon it, as if no suit had been in*S. C., 1 Southwestern Reporter, 414.

stituted; Berthoud agreeing that on the first of

March, 1879, he would deliver up to the receiver the rolling stock, loose materials, personalty, and all the property now on the track of said railroad, and belonging to the same, without any further notice. Berthoud was in fact operating the road under the direction of the receiver from the time the court placed the road in his possession.

After the institution of the various actions in the Fleming circuit court, the appellant (manufacturing company) instituted an action in the United States circuit court for the district of Kentucky against Berthoud, to recover from him the possession of the cars, under its contract. The marshal, by a process from that court, seized the two cars, and, before removing them they were taken from bim by the receiver. Appellant's action against Berthoud in the district court was still prosecuted, and, Berthoud failing to appear, a judgment by default was entered, and the marshal again seized the cars; and, when this was done, the receiver in the Fleming circuit court instituted his action as such against the marshal, and regained the possession. When the action in the Fleming circuit court by the receiver against the marshal was called, the appellant, (manufacturing company) by its petition, asked to be made a defendant in lieu of the marshal, which was done, aud then, by motion had the case transferred to the United States circuit court, at Covington, for trial.

The receiver, by an order of the Fleming circuit court, was directed to prosecute the action, and when the case was transferred to the district court such party submitted to the jurisdiction of that court; and, the law and facts having been submitted to the judge, a judgment was rendered adjudging that the receiver was entitled to the cars, and gave costs against the appellant. In that action, transferred from the Fleming circuit court to the United States district court, the appellant filed an answer setting up title by reason of its judgment by default in that court against Berthoud; and, by an amended answer, set up title in its own right against Berthoud, and all others claiming to be the original and absolute owners of the property. On the entire pleadings an is-ue was raised, and the title of the appellant brought directly in question, and the judgment rendered as heretofore stated.

After that judgment the appellant, conceiving that its only effect was to restore the possession of the cars to the receiver of the Fleming circuit court, on the ground that he had been unlawfully deprived of them by the marshal, filed its petition in the consolidated attachment suits pending in the Fleming circuit court, and asked to have the cars sold, and the proceeds of sale applied to the payment of its unsatisfied debt. In this assertion of right the appellant is met—First, with the judgment rendered in the district court in bar of any further claim of title; and, secondly, that, under the contract between the appellant and Berthoud, the title as to creditors and purchasers

passed from the appellant, because the contract, being in the nature of a mortgage, had never been recorded.

Whether the judicial determination of the United States circuit court was in favor of the receiver on the question of title, or merely restored to him the possession of the property, the state court having first obtained jurisdiction, we shall not stop to inquire, as, in our opinion, the title to the property passed to the purchaser, Berthoud, the lien retained by the contract on the part of the manufacturing company being in the nature of a chattel mortgage. The statute of this state provides that “no deed of trust or mortgage, conveying a legal or equitable title to real or personal estate, shall be valid against a purchaser for a valuable consideration, without notice thereof, or against creditors, until such deed shall be acknowledged or proved according to law, and lodged for record.” Section 10, c. 24, Gen. St.

In this case $1,400 of the purchase money was paid to to the appellant by Berthoud, his note executed for the remainder, and the cars delivered to and brought from the State of Ohio to the state of Kentucky by him, and placed upon the road of the company under ihe contract with Quintard to construct and equip certain parts of the road at a fixed price. That it was a sale of the cars to Berthoud is manifest, and the reservation of title in the vendor was simply to create a lien by the appellant as against any purchaser or creditor of the vendee. It was a lien for the purchase price, or a part of the purchase money, that could be enforced between the parties, but did not affect the right of creditors unless recorded, as provided by the statute. All the appellant could have done under the contract was to regain the possession, and sell the property to satisfy the uusatisfied claim. The vendee had agreed that the vendor should sell instead of the chancellor, and but for this provision of the contract a court of equity would have been called on to enforce the lien. Appellant has made its vendee the ostensible owner,-had received more than half the purchase money,--and when the cars had been transferred to an adjoining state, and placed upon the track of the railroad company, the appellant, with this evidence of the lien in its pucket only, is now insisting that no title ever passed to its vendee, or that it has a prior equity against the claims of creditors. To so hold would be to disregard the the plain provisions of the statute, enacted to prevent fraud, and protect the rights of creditors and purchasers; and, as said by this court in the case of Greer v. Church, 13 Bush, 430, the title in such cases will be treated as being where the nature of the transaction requirer it should be. The cases of Vaughn v. Hopson, 10 Bush, 337, and Greer v. Church, ubi supra, settle this question. ,

In the case of Heryford v. Davis, 102 U. S. 235, on error to the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Missouri, the manufacturer of cars agreed to loan to B., for hire,

certain cars, to be used on its road, and at the belonged to the railway company or 10 Quintard same time took notes from B. for the value of the is immeterial. If to the railroad, it was an innocars, with certain bonds of the company as colla- cent purchaser; if to Quintard, his creditors can teral security for the payment of the notes; the

subject them. As to whether or not the cars were latter to have the privilege, at any time during liable to the claims of attaching creditors, as the four months, (the period of hiring,) to pur- against the lien of the appellant, must be deterchase the cars, on the payment of the notes; and

mined by the law of this state. While the lien that, until such payment is made in full, B. shall

may be valid by the laws of Ohio against credi. have no right, title, claim, or interest in the cars,

tors and purchasers, it has no such effect in this except as to their use for hire. In default of pay

state. Green v. Van Buskirk, 5 Wall. 310. ment, A. was to sell the cars for so much as might

Judgment affirmed. be needed to pay the amount due on the notes, and the balance, if any, to be paid over to B.; NOTE.—A sale may undoubtedly be made upon conand, when all the notes are paid, A. agreed to dition that the title shall not pass until the purchase give B. good and sufficient bill of sale. The cars money has been paid. And an agreement of that were delivered to B. without the contract having character is valid, although the goods are not in exbeen recorded, and C., obtaining a judgment

istence when the contract is made. And in cases of

this character, the vendor is protected against attachagainst B., levied on the cars. The supreme court

ing creditors.3 The protection of the vendor, in such held that the title to the cars passed to B., and a case, is put, by Williams, C. J., in a Connecticut that, to protect them from seizure and sale by C., case,4 upon the ground that when the vendee comes the contracts should have been recorded as pro- into possession of property known to belong to anothvided by the laws of Missouri.

er man, it is incumbent upon persons disposed to deal

with it, to ascertain its status. “Whether, therefore, A similar decision was also rendered by the

the vendee had borrowed it, or bought it, or hired it, supreme court in the case of Hervey v. R. I. Lo

is a matter of inquiry, and ought to be ascertained by comotive-works, on error to the circuit court for him who proposes to trust his property on the faith of the southern district of Missouri, reported in 93 this appearance." U. S. 664.

The vendor, however, must, as against third per.

sons, show that the vendee has not complied with the It is insisted that Berthoud was not indebted to

conditions of the sale.5 Upon this condition the secret any of the creditors of Quintard, or the railroad lien of the vendor is good against the creditors of the company, and, the title being in him, his property vendee. As to bona fide purchasers for a valuable should not be subjected to pay another's debt.

consideration without notice, the principle is dif• The question is not raised by Berthoud, and,

ferent. The rule is well established and without ex.

ception, that when it becomes necessary that one of during the entire litigation, he has made no claim

two innocent parties shall suffer a loss, it must fall to these cars, or interposed, by any pleading in upon him who by his act rendered the loss possible. the Fleming circuit court, to show title in him- There can be no doubt, that when personal property self, or that he had any interest in the litigation. is transferred from one State to another, its liability to His testimony might have shed some light on the

seizure and sale must be wholly determined by the

laws of the State to which it has been carried. It subject, and, although anxious to prevent creditors from making their debts by the sale of the

might well happen, therefore, that when the property

has been so removed, the contract, which was in Ohio cars, he fails to testify as to title in himself, or to

a conditional sale, might, in Kentucky, because of its speak at all with reference to the claims of others. registration laws, and their operation on secret liens, The suits had been pending in the state courts be held an absolute sale—but with a chattel mortgage since March, 1877, by these creditors claiming

attached, and therefore, without the prescribed regis. that the cars belonged to Quintard or the railway

tration, invalid against creditors or subsequent pur

chasers.-[Ed. CENT. L. J.] company. He made no claim in his own right, but undertook to operate the road as the agent of the receiver. In February, 1878, long before the

i Benjamin on Sales, 3d ed., p. 286, note; and cases

there cited. appellant sued Berthoud in the United States

2 Benner v. Puffer, 114 M&ss. 376. circuit court, as the agent of Quintard or for him- 3 Strong v. Taylor, 2 Hill, 326; Hussey v. Thornton, 4 self, he made out an account against the railroad

Mass. 405; Bennett v. Pritchard, 2 Pick. 512; Vincent v

Cornell, 13 Fick. 294; Fairbanks y, Phelps, 22 Pick. 355; company for these cars, that was allowed. All

Hart v. Carpenter, 24 Conn. 427. the rolling stock was charged to the company, or 4 Forbes v. Marsh, 15 Conn. 384. transferred to it, and not until February, 1879,

5 Leighton v. Stevens, 19 Me. 54; Leigh v. Mobile, etc..

Co., 58 Ala. 165; Van Duzor v. Allen, 90 III. 499. was the claim of the appellant asserted against

6 Green v. Van Buskırk. 5 Wall. (72 U. S, 310. Berthoud. Quintard bad agreed to construct and equip this road. The cars and rolling stock was upon it, being used for purposes of transportation. No claim was set up all this while by Berthoud. That he was the agent of Quintard, or connected with him in the contract, is evident, and equally as manifest that they charged the railway company with these cars long before any claim was set up by the appallant. So, whether the cars

WEEKLY DIGEST OF RECENT CASES.

proceedings were begun, and has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the insolvency court. Norris 0. Atkinson, S. C. N. H., July 30, 1886; 5 Atl. Rep., 710.

[blocks in formation]

1. AGENCY.--Agent's Authority, Warranty-Evi

dence-Sufficiency-Sale.—The fact that the vendor of a steam-boiler, through his agent, furnishes the vendee, at the time of the sale, with his pamphlet descriptive of such boilers, in which durability is advertised as an essential quality, is evidence from wbich the agent's authority to warrant durability may be inferred. From evidence that, after the sale of a boiler by the vendor's agent, but before payment, the vendee claimed the agent warranted its durability, which claim the vendor neither admitted nor denied, but received the purchase price, it is competent to find such a warranty. Smilie v. Hobbs, S. C. N. H., July 30, 1886; 5 Atl. Rep., 711.

5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.-State Quarantine Laws

- Commercial Relations-Congressional Interference-Acts of Congress-Fee for Inspection-Preference of Port.- The system of quarantine laws established by statutes of Louisiana is a rightful exercise of the police power for the protection of health which is not forbidden by the Constitution of the United States. While some of the rules of that system may amount to regulations of commerce with foreign nations or among the States, though not so designed, they belong to that class which the States may establish until Congress acts in the matter by covering the same ground or forbidding State laws. Congress, so far from doing either of these things, bas, by the Act of 1799, c. 53, Revised Statutes, and previous laws, and by the recent Act of 1878, 20 U. S. Sts. 37, adopted the laws of the States on that subject, and forbidden all interference with their enforcement. The requirement that each vessel passing a quarantine station shall pay a fee fixed by the statute for examination as to her sanitary condition, and the ports from which she came, is a part of ali quarantine systems, and is a compensation for services rendered to the vessel, and is not a tax within the meaning of the Constitution concerning tonnage tax imposed by the States. Nor is it liable to constitutional objection as giving a preference for a port of one State over those of another. That section (nine) of the first article of the Constitution is a restraint upon powers of the general government and not of the States, and can bave no application to the quarantine laws of Louisiana. Morgan, etc. Co. v. Board of Health, S. C. U. S.,

May 10, 1886; 22 Rep., 417. 6. CORPORATIONS.-Action by Stockholders, when

Entertained-Equity.-A court of equity will not entertain an action by stockholders against the directors of the corporation and others, for the purpose of compelling the defendants to an accounting, obtaining the appointment of a receiver, and to restrain the collection of an assessment on the capital stock, on the ground of conspiracy, fraud and embezzlement by the defendants, if it appears that the plaintiffs, at the time they, in writing, requested the president and directors to institute the action on behalf of the stockholders (which request was refused), were aware that they had no cause of action against said directors, at least, and that the real object which they had in view in instituting the action was not stated to the directors; for in such case it is clear that the request to the directors; for in such case it is clear that the request to the directors to institute tbe action was not an earnest, but a simulated one. Bacon v. Irvine, S. C. Cal., July 27, 1886; 11 Pac. Rep., 646.

2. ASSIGNMENT.Partial Assignment of Debt may

be Enforced in Equity-Not in Fraud of Insolvent Law.-A bill in equity may be maintained to enforce the partial assignment of a debt. A. bad made a contract to erect a school-house for the city of N., but became insolvent, and, in order to secure funds to enable him to complete his contract, made an assignment to C. of $600, which was a part of the sum to be due to him from the city of N. upon the completion of the school-house, and C. thereupon advanced him certain sums of money. Held, that the assignment was not in fraud of the insolvent law, and could be enforced in equity. James v. City of Newton, S. J. Ct. Mass., Sept. 8, 1886; 8 N. East. Rep., 122.

3. ASSIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS.

Goods Held to Secure Advances made by Insolvent-Right of Assignee-Death of one PartnerPower of Survivor to Execute Deed of Assignment Improperly Uniting Actions-Recovery of Insolrent's Goods- Settlement and Distribution of Insolvent Estate.-The assignee of an insolvent warehouseman properly has the possession of goods previously consigned to the warehouseman, to secure advances made to the consignor. Sur. viving partner has the power of executing a deed of assignment for the benefit of the firm's creditors. An action by an assignee to recover the possession of personal property cannot be united in an action to settle and distribute the estate of his assignor. Atchison v. Jones, Ct. of App. Ky.,

Sept. 11, 1886; 1 S. W. Rep., 406. 4. CONFLICT OF LAWS.-Insolvency-Jurisdiction

Discharge in Another State.-A defendant's discharge under the insolvency law of Massachusetts, is no bar to a suit in New Hampshire, on a contract made in that State before the insolvency, when the plaintiff has not resided there since the insolvency

7.

Execution of Instruments by-Authority of Officers— Mortgages-Foreclosure- Attorneys' Fees.- Where instruments, purporting to be executed by a corporation, bave affixed to them the corporate seal, ard are proved to be signed by the proper officers, such officers must be presumed not to have exceeded their authority, and the burden to prove the contrary is on the party disputing the due execution of the instruments. Where facts and circumstances surrounding the execution of instruments by the officers of corporations show the existence of proper resolutions of authorizatrust funds in their hands. Married women are also liable to contribute, the liability being statutory and incident to the ownership of stock. No record is required to perfect the transfer of stock, unless such record is required by the charter or by-laws of the corporation. When outstanding notes of a corporation were paid by the proceeds of bonds issued by the corporation to others than the note holders. Held, that the debt represenied by the bonds was contracted as and when the bonds were issued. Sayles v. Bates, S. C. R. I. July 10, 1886; 2 N. Eng. Rep. 633.

tion, and support the presúmption of their authoritative execution as shown by the corporate seal being thereto affixed, as well as the proved signatures of the proper officers, the fact that such resolutions do not happen to appear in the proper book of the corporation will not be held absolutely to disprove their existence, and make null and void such instruments. Where the resolutions of a corporation, authorizing loans and mortgages, did not give authority to have attorneys' fees secured in the latter, a court in actions for the foreclosure of the mortgages properly declines to allow any. Schallard v. Eel River, etc. Co., S. C. Cal., July

13, 1886; 11 Pac. Rep., 590. 8.

Franchises-- Power to Estend Operations - Taxation-Ecemption by Charter - Manufacturing Company.-An act of the legislature giving a corporation power to extend its operations does not change its character or attributes, and therefore is not a new franchise. A corporation taxed, under the New Jersey law of 1884, for State purposes, is not liable for the payment of the same, upon showing exemption by its charter, and that it is a manufacturing company. State v. Society, etc., N. J. Ct. Chancery, Sept. 24, 1886; 5 Atl. Rep., 724.

[ocr errors]

11. DEED--Exception and Reservation From-Property Conveyed by Inference.-As a deed of property carries with it that without whicb the property granted would be useless in the hands of the grantee, so, also, an exception or reservation in a deed works in favor of the grantor. Green Bay, etc. Co. v. Hewitt, S. C. Wis. Sept. 21, 1886; 29 N. W. Rep. 237.

9. CORPORATIONS- Municipal Corporations-Lien for Street ImprovementsComplaint - Vecessary Averments- Åpportionment Between Lot Oveners -Constitutional Law-Rules of Pleading-Legislature Assuming Judicial Functions.-A petition seeking a lien for street improvements is defective which only alleges that the ordinance authorizing the improvements was duly passed by the general council. This is a mere legal conclusion, and all the facts entitling the contractor to his lion must be alleged and proven. A petition seeking a lien for street improvements must contain an allegation that the apportionment between the lot owners was made by the council as the law requires. The act of legislature of Kentucky of March 24, 1882, providing that all courts of Jefferson county shall take jndicial notice of the passage, approval, contents, and publication of each ordinance of the city, held invalid, as making a petition to depend upon the legislative instead of the judicial judgment. Johnson v. Ferrell, Ct. App. Ky. Sept. 14, 1886; 1 S. W. Rep. 412.

12. EMINENT DOMAIN-Action of Trespass-Jury

of Vievo-Waiver-Former Recovery— Timber Act of 1824.-When one invested with the right of eminent domain enters upon and appropriates the land of another, without complying with an existing statutory requirement to make compensation or tender a bond, the land owner may recover in an action of trespass such damages for the unlaw. ful entry and damages to the property as have been suffered to the time of bringing suit, or bond filed and approved in the event of such being done before suit brought. A land-owner whose land has been unlawfully entered upon by or under the right of eminent domain, may either proceed by action of trespass for the unlawful entry, or may waive his right to so proceed, and submit his entire case to the jury of view, but if he does the latter he is bound by it. A gas and water company, invested with the rigbt to take property under a power of eminent domain, entered upon land without first making compensation or tendering a bond; after being in possession it cut timber; later a bond was filed by the company; later an action of trespass for the unlawful entry was commenced against the company. Held, that it was proper to show on the trial of such action that on the hearing before the viewers, the plaintiff has submitted the question of the value of the timber cut, and asked that the damages sustained there. for, be allowed, and that the jury of view had so allowed. When the cutting of timber is a mere incident to the taking of land for a public use the timber act of 1824 does not apply. Bethlehem, etc. Co. v. Yoder, S. C. Penn. March 29, 1886; 6 East. Rep. 838.

10. - Stockholders Liability oj.-A statute

provided that members of every incorporated manufacturing company should be liable for all debts of the corporation until the whole capital stock was paid in and certain certificates filed. Held, that this liability extended to all persons who were stockholders when the debt was contracted, and also to all persons who were stockholders when the liability was enforced by legal process, but not to persons becoming stockholders after the debt was contracted, and ceasing to be stockholders before the liability was enforced. Another statute gave to a stockholder paying such debt of the corporation an action for contribution against the stockholders "originally liable” with him for the debt. Held, that all persons who were stockholders when the debt was contracted, and also all persons who were stockholders when the liability for the debt was enforced, could be made to contribute. Executors and administrators may effectively plead the special statute of limitations of three years, in their favor, to an action against them for such contribution. Trustees holding stock in trust are liable to contribute from the

13. EQUITY-Accident and Mistake · Reforming

Deed-Trust.-Where lands were intended to be conveyed to one in trust to another, but, by mis. take, the intended trustee was given an absolute deed, and execution upon a judgment against him was issucd, and the land in question was advertised to be sold to satisfy the execution, an action brought by the intended cestui que trust to reform the deed to the intended trustee so as to show the former's title will be sustained. Sullivan v. Bruhling, S. C. Wis. Sept. 21, 1886; 29 N. W. Rep. 211.

Cloud Upon Title to Realty- Sheriff's Deeds.-A married woman is entitled, as a preventive against a cloud upon her title, to an injunction to restrain a sheriff from selling, under an execu

14.

« AnteriorContinuar »