« ZurückWeiter »
reasonable man, he ought to regard it as notice to control his con-
duct in relation to the matter of the assignment. (Pa. St.) Phillips
Estate (No. 4), 750.
2. ASSIGNMENTS—Priority-Notice.--If an assignee of a fund
as collateral security for the payment of notes writes the holder of
the legal title of the fund, offering to sell the notes, and stating that
they are secured by the assignment, this is not such notice of the
assignment as will secure to such assignee priority over subsequent
assignments of the same fund of which proper notice is given.
(Pa. St.) Phillips' Estate (No. 4), 750.
3. ASSIGNMENTS Priority--Notice.--As between successive
assignees of a fund in the hands of a third person, that assignee,
without regard to the date of his assignment, who first gives the
debtor notice of it, obtains priority and is entitled to be first paid.
(Pa. St.) Phillips' Estate (No. 3), 746.
4. ASSIGNMENTS -Priority-Notice.--If an assignee of a fund
fails to give notice to the person holding the fund, a subsequent as
signee, without notice of the former assignment, will, upon giving
notice of his assignment, acquire priority. (Pa. St.) Phillips' Es-
tate (No. 3), 746.
6. ASSIGNMENTS Priority--Notice-Intervening Attachment,
The assignee of a fund who has given no notice of his assignment
to the holder of the fund acquires priority over a subsequent assignee
of the fund who has given such notice, if a foreign attachment has
intervened against the fund between the dates of the two assign-
ments. (Pa. St.) Phillips' Estate (No. 4), 750.
6. EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENT--Form of Words.-An Intention
to assign on the one side, and an assent to receive on the other,
operate as an equitable assignment of the subject matter, if sug-
tained by a sufficient consideration; the form of words is not con-
trolling. (Colo.) Wood v. Casserleigh, 138.
7. EQUITABLE, ASSIGNMENT of Interest in Judgment.--If one
contracts with the plaintiff in an action to furnish evidence and pro-
vide for the prosecution of the cause, for an interest in the judg.
ment recovered, and in accordance therewith the action is prosecuted
successfully, the contract constitutes an assignment of an interest
in the property recovered. (Colo.) Wood v. Casserleigh, 138.
8. ASSIGNMENTS of Property to be Acquired in the Futuro may
be enforced by a decree for a specific performance of the contract
to assign as soon as the property comes into existence in the hands
of the assignor. (Colo.) "Wood v. Casserleigh, 138.
Bee Landlord and Tenant, 1.
1. ATTACHMENT as Affecting Title.--The title of one, in the
actual possession of goods is not affected by attachment suits which
are not prosecuted to judgment. (Mo.) Rosencranz v. Swofford
Bros. etc. Co., 609.
2. ATTACHMENT—Levy-Creation of Lien.-—The levy of a writ
of attachment must be in substantial compliance with the provisions
of the statute, to create a lien. (Idaho) Williams v. Olden, 250.
3. ATTACHMENT_Notice of Levy-Creation of Lien.--If the
statute requires copies of a writ of attachment, a description of
the property and notice of the levy to be served on the occupant
of the land attached, if there is one, and if none, the posting of
such copies in a conspicuous place, on the land, it is not a sufficient
compliance with the statute to create a lien, to serve such copies on
the owner who is not an occupant of the land. (Idaho) Williams 7,
4. ATTACHMENT-Lien.-Entry of Judgment will not cure de
fects in the levy of a writ of attachment, and make what is no lien
a valid one. (Idaho) Williams v. Olden, 250.
5. ATTACHMENT BONDS are Valid although the names of the
obligors signed at the bottom of the bonds do not appear in the body
thereof. (Ala.) McLean v. Wright, 67.
6. ATTACHMENT BONDS_Defective Affidavit.-An attachment
bond is not rendered invalid by reason of the fact that the affidavit
upon which the writ of attachment was isgued disclosed no statutory
ground for the issuance of the attachment. (Ala.) McLean 5.
See Assignments, 5; Garnishment; Trover and Conversion, 4-6.
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.
1. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT—Contingent Fee-Burden of
Proof.-An attorney contracting for it contingent fee from his client
has the burden to prove that the contract is a fair one for the cli.
ent. (N. J. Eq.) Lynde v. Lynde, 692,
2. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT-Summary Jurisdiction Over At
torneys.-If it appears that an attorney, or solicitor has received,
in his capacity as an officer of the court, any money which his duty
requires him to pay over to his clieut, the court may exercise its
summary disciplinary punitive powers to require him to do justice
to his client. (N. J. Eq.) Lynde v. Lynde, 692.
3. SUMMARY JURISDICTION Over Attorneys and Solicitors is
not confined to matters arising out of litigation, but extends to any
case where the employment of the attorney is 80 connected with
his professional character as to afford the presumption that such
character formed the ground of his employment by his client. (N.
J. Eq.) Lynde v. Lynde, 692.
4. SUMMARY JURISDICTION Over Attorneys. A court will
not desist from requiring its own attorney to do his duty to his
client simply because the transaction in question arose in litigation
in another court, nor because he is the attorney of another court
practicing in the court exercising the summary jurisdiction. (N.
J. Eq.) Lynde v. Lynde, 692.
See Judgments, 6; Principal and Surety, 4.
Seo Constitutional Law, 5; Sales.
Attorneys' Fees, constitutionality of statutes allowing against ise
surance corporations, 632-634.
BANKS AND BANKING.
1. BANKING--Payment by Charging Amount of Check to
Drawer's Account.-If the payee in a check deposits it for collec-
tion in a bank, which forwards it to the drawee bank for payment,
an entry ongits books by the latter bank charging the amount of the
check to the drawee's account discharges him from liability on the
debt for which the check was given, notwithstanding the drawee
bank withholds the money from the collecting bank and fails to
enter the proper credit to its account. (Ga.) Smith Roofing etc. Co.
v. Mitchell, 217.
2. BANKING_Liability of Bank Purchasing and Collecting
Shipper's Draft.—A banker who purchases a shipper's draft of his
consignees, accompanied by a bill of lading to the shipper's order, an!
presents such draft and bill of lading to the consignee, and receives.
payment of the draft, and delivers the bills of exchange, does not
thereby become a party to the contract of sale entered into between
the shipper and the consignee, nor answerable for the differ-
ence in value between the amount of property specified in the bill
of lading and the amount actually shipped, where the shipper had
fraudulently procured a bill of lading in excess of the property
shipped, but the bank was ignorant of the fraud and not guilty of
any negligence or misconduct on its part. (Tex.) S. Blaisdell, Jr.,.
Co. v. Citizens' Nat. Bank etc., 944.
3. BANKS AND BANKING—Insolvency.—Deposits of money in
bank, subject to check, become due without demand, if the bank be-
comes insolvent. (Mich.) Thompson v. Union Trust Co., 494.
4. BANKS AND BANKING Insolvency-Setoff.—Deposits of
money in bank when it becomes insolvent may be set off against the
notes of the depositor to the bank not then due. (Mich.) Thomp-
son v. Union Trust Co., 494.
1. BASTARDS not “Children."-Prima facie, the word
children,”' when used in a statute, will, or deed, means
legitimate child or children; bastards are not within the term “child”
or "children." (Ga.) Robinson v. Georgia R. R, etc. Co., 156.
2. PARENT AND CHILD_Legitimation.—Conflict of Laws.—A
statute purporting to make legitimate an illegitimate child can have
no effect as against its father, who was not, when the statute was
enacted, a citizen of, nor resident within, the state, though he was
such citizen and resident when the child was born. (Mass.) Irving
v. Ford, 447.
3. PARENT AND CHILD_Legitimation, Effect of in a Case of
Conflicting Domiciles.-The law of the father's domicile at the time
of the legitimating act is the law by which to determine the status
of both parties. If, by that law, the act in question legitimates a
bastard, the beneficial status thus created will, in general, be recog-
nized elsewhere, including the bastard's domicile, though by the law
of the latter state, the act is not sufficient to create legitimation..
(Mass.) Irving v. Ford, 447.
See Death, 2.
Bees, care which owners of must exercise as to place of keeping, 291.
keeping of is not necessarily a nuisance, but may become such
liability for placing in the highways, 290.
liability of owners of for injuries inflicted by, 290.
BILLS AND NOTES.
1. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS-Holder for Value.- If a noto
is made payable to a named agent, and is by him sold, indorsed, and
delivered before maturity for a valuable consideration, the purchaser
is entitled to recover thereon. (Idaho) Yates v. Spofford, 267.
2. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS—Burden of Proof.-If defend.
ant admits the execution of the note in suit, but denies that the
holder is the owner therof by purchase, before maturity, and alleges
want of consideration, the burden of proving such allegations is on
the defendant. (Idaho) Yates v. Spofford, 267.
3. NEGOTIABLE PAPER_Title Derived from a Thief.-An in.
nocent purchaser of negotiable commercial paper gets a good title,
though he purchased from a thief. (Kan.) First Nat. Bank v.
4. NEGOTIABLE PAPER.-
County Warrants, Though Negotide
ble in Form, are not negotiable in fact. Hence a purchaser from a
thief does not acquire any title. (Kan.) First Nat. Bank v. Gates,
5. BANKING-Check-Bona Fide Purchaser of, Who is.-If a
check payable to a creditor of a husband, and signed by a wife, is
handed by her to her husband, to be delivered to the creditor in pay.
ment of a debt due from ber to him, but is fraudulently handed by
the husband to the creditor in payment of a debt due to him from
the husband and is so accepted in good faith, such creditor is a bona
fide purchaser of a check, and she cannot set up her husband's fraud
in defense of the check, nor maintain an action for money had and
received after the payment of it, on discovering the fraud. (Mass.)
Boston Steel etc. Co. v. Steuer, 426.
6. BANKING_Check--Payee of may be a Bona Fide Purchaser
of.-One named as a payee in a negotiable check may become a bona
fide purchaser of it, with all the rights incident to a purchaser for
value without notice. (Mass.) Boston Steel etc. Co. v. Stener, 426.
7. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS_Purchaser for Value, Who is
The Payment of a Pre-existing Debt makes the holder a bona fide pur-
chaser for value. (Mass.) Boston Steel etc. Co. v. Steuer, 426.
8. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS
Check-Holder in Due
Course, Who is.-One named as a payee in a check drawn by a mar.
ried woman and delivered by her to her husband to deliver to such
payee in payment of her debt is a holder thereof in due course, thougla
it is delivered to him by the husband in payment of the latter's own
debt, where it was received without notice of the misappropriation by
the husband. (Mass.) Boston Steel etc. Co. v. Steuer, 426.
9. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS Holder in Due Course.--A
pledgee of a check may be a holder in due course, under section 9 of
the negotiable instruments act of 1898. (Mass.) Boston Steel etc.
Co. v. Steuer, 426.
10. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS--Check Blank as to Amount
A check or bill of exchange in which a blank is left as to amount
is an incomplete instrument, and the rights of a purchaser depend
upon the real authority which the signer has in fact given in the
matter, under the negotiable instruments act, and if delivered in
payment of a debt to one person, when the instructions of the signer
were to deliver it in payment of the debt of another, the application
of the check to the payment of the debt of the former cannot be such
tained. (Mass.) Boston Steel etc. Co. v. Steuer, 426.
11. EVDENCE of Instructions Given in the Absence of the Person
to be Affected. Where a check, blank as to amount, is given by a
wife to her husband, with instructions that he deliver it to the payee
in payment of her debt, and it is in fact filled up as to amount and
delivered in payment of the husband's debt, evidence of these instruc-
tions is admissible against the payee, though not made in his presence,
nor brought home to his knowledge before receiving the check.
(Mass.) Boston Steel etc, Co. v. Steuer, 426.
12. BILLS OF EXCHANGE-Liability of Purchasers or Payees.-
One who has accepted or paid a bill of exchange drawn on him can.
not defeat his acceptance by recovering the money paid because
there was no consideration, or the consideration has failed as be-
tween him and the drawer, when the payee bought from the latter,
for value, without notice of the defense. (Tex.) S. Blaisdell, Jr.,
Co. v. Citizens' Nat. Bank etc., 944.
13. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS—Indorsement.-- Parol Evi.
dence is Admissible, as between the immediate parties, to show the
circumstances under, and the time at which a negotiable instru-
ment was made. (W. Va.) Young v. Sehon, 970.
14. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS Indorsements Special
Agreement Between the Parties.-Any agreement between the par-
ties to a note bearing an irregular indorsement as to the extent of
their liability may be shown by parol evidence, and may be enforced
as to all who are parties to the agreement. (W. Va.) Young v.
15. BILLS AND NOTES_Non-negotiable Liability of Indors-
ers, When Collateral to that of the Maker.-If a non-negotiable
promissory, note is indorsed first by the payee and next by another
person, the undertaking on the part of the indorsers is presumed to
be collateral to, and not joint with, the maker. (W. Va.) Young
v. Sehon, 970.
16. BILLS AND NOTESNon-negotiable Paper-Parol Evidence
to Vary.—The rule against the admission of parol evidence to show
the consideration, the relation of the parties, and the circumstances
attending the execution of the paper, to the end that the true intent
of the parties may be ascertained and effected, is not applicable to
non-negotiable paper. (W. Va.) Young v. Sehon, 970.
17. BILLS AND NOTES—Non-negotiable Makers and Indorserg
--Parol Evidence to Show Respective Liabilities of.-If a non-nego-
tiable promissory note is indorsed by the promisee and another in
such manner as would make them first and second indorsers if the
note were negotiable paper, evidence is admissible to show the rela.
tion which they bear to one who asserts a liability against them on
such note. (W. Va.) Young v. Sehon, 970.
18. BILLS AND NOTES—Non-negotiableMaker and Indorsers
-When Liable as Joint Parties.—Where a non-negotiable promissory
note is drawn up by one person purporting to be payable to another,
and is by the latter and another signed on the back as if they were
first and second indorsers, for the purpose of procuring moneys for
the benefit of the maker, the indorsement being, to give him credit
with such person as might accept it and furnish money upon it,
the person so furnishing money may elect to hold all the parties as
joint promisors, or to treat the indorsers as guarantors. (W. Va.)
Young v. Sehon,
19. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS Release of Maker Without
Affecting the Indorsers.—An agreement not to sue the maker of a ne