Зображення сторінки









1. Where the chattels of one, by his
consent, come to the possession of
and are used by another until worn
out and rendered valueless, the
owner may recover the fair value
of such use, unless it be proved
that the permission was given and
accepted as a gratuity, and without
any expectation of reward there-
for. Riler et al. v. The Union India
Rubber Company,..


2. The owner may recover for such
use, althongh it was begun and con-
tinúed in the mutual expectation
that the party so using the chattels
would purchase them, and notwith-
standing the managing agent of such
party, under whose direction the
use was made, in good faith be-
lieved that his principal had pur-
chased them.


3. But the statute of limitations is a
bar to a recovery for the use for any
period antecedent to six years before
action brought. ...


4. One who, by the request of a
thief or tortious taker, sells the
chattels of another is liable to the
true owner as tor a conversion.
Anderson et al. v. Nicholas, ....121
5. Action for delay in receiving goods
sold. Dibble et al. v. Corbett et al.,


6. A cause of action for extra work
and materials alleged to have been
done and furnished in enlarging the
capacity of and completing a vessel,
originally contracted to be built for
an agreed sum, where no time of
payment for such extra work is
stipulated, accrues when such extra
work has been completed. Peck v.
The New York and Liverpool United
States Mail Steamship Co., .....226

7. Corporation for receiving deposita
of savings not liable for tortious act
of its President or Vice-President
amounting to a conversion of the
personal property of a third per-
son, done without the knowledge
or sanction of its directors or trus-
tees. Thomson v. Sixpenny Savings



8. How far a qualified refusal to de-
liver on demand is evidence of con-
version, considered...... .....id

9. The plaintiff in a judgment cannot
maintain an action to set aside a
conveyance by his debtor as fraudu-
lent until an execution has been

issued, and that fact must be averred.
McCullough v. Colby et al., ....477

10. A bank check being made in

terms payable to one who is acting
as agent for another, and he having
credited his principal with the
amount thereof, he may maintain
an action thereon in his own name.
Fish v. Jacobsohn,


11. A merely voluntary payment by

a party, though for the benefit of
another, creates no right of action
against the latter unless the latter
acquiesces in or adopts the act.
Hearne, Adm'x, v. Keene, ......579

12. But if such a payment is made by

request of the agent for the defend-
ant, the latter is liable for the money,
provided such agent had either a
general or special authority to bor-


2. Evidence of authority of agent,
when? Trask v. Jones et al., ...62


1. When an agent or officer of a cor-
poration, in good faith, in the proper
discharge of his duty, applies his
own money or makes use of his own
chattels for the proper uses of the
corporation, he may recover for such
money or such use. Rider et al. v.
The Union India Rubber Co.,...85

2. Although an agent or officer can-
not, as such, make a contract with
himself, and so bind his principal to
himself, his principal is nevertheless
bound to pay for property used by
his agent, in the faithful discharge
of his duty, for purposes within his
authority, and the measure of com-
pensation is the fair value of the
property so used.

3. One who deals with or disposes of
the personal property of another
(the same not being negotiable pa-
per) must see to it that he acts by
the authority of some one who has
power sufficient to warrant such
dealing or disposition. Anderson et
al. v. Nicholas,



Bond, (payable on the opening

of a street, liability ceases if

plan be altered,) ........389
BROKER, (liability on purchase of

stock' for his employer,) ..506

4. Agent for collection, transferring
bill of exchange as security for his
own preëxisting debt, confers no
title as against his principal. Scott
v. Ocean Bank,...



1. Common carrier liable for injuries
caused by inevitable accident or act
of God, if he by negligence or in-
excusable delay exposes goods to
the peril. Read et al. v. Spaulul-


5. A broker, making a purchase of
stock in good faith in the usual
course of business for a principal
who employs him and pays for the
stock to him, is not liable to refund
the money to his principal although
it subsequently appears that the
stock was fraudulently issued by an
agent of the corporation, and is of
no value. Peckham v. Ketchum et



1. Whether publication of dissolu-
tion of partnership is necessary,
considered. Hordane et al. v. But-

6. An agent receiving a check drawn
payable to himself, in payment of


money due to his principal, and
having credited the principal with
the amount thereof may sue thereon
in his own name. Fish v, Jacob-


1. Although in the progress of an
action for a divorce alimony pen-
dente lite has been once fixed and
allowed to the plaintiff, the amount
may be altered and increased upon
its appearing that the necessities of
the plaintiff require it, and the
amount of the defendant's property
is such that the increased allow-
ance is reasonable. Forrest v. For-


7. Where the authority of an agent
was general in respect to a par-
ticular business, (the management
of a theatre,) carried on by the de-
fendant, and it appeared that, ac-
cording to the habit and course of
business, his agency embraced the
receipt and disbursement of the
moneys of the theatre, and the rais-
ing of money to carry it on when
required: Held, that the defendant
is liable for money paid by the re-
quest of such agent for the rent of
the theatre in which her business
was carried on, and for which she
was liable as lessee. Hearne, Adm'x,
v. Keene,


2. The amount reported to be rea-
sonable by the Referee, appointed
to settle the amount of permanent
alimony, is not to be taken as the
rule in determining the alimony to
be allowed pending the further liti-
gation, and

while that report is itself
in course of being reviewed on ex-

3. In determining the allowance of
alimony, the amount of the principal
of the defendant's estate being stated
by himself, it is just to assume that
he makes that principal yield a rea-
sonable income unless he shows
some sufficient reason why he does
not and cannot..


Vide CORPORATION, 2, 3, 5, 6.

PLEADINGS, 1, 6, 7.




1. An unconditional agreement by
creditors to accept part of the
amounts due from their debtor, in
compromise of their respective de-
mands, is valid though not signed
by all his creditors.

Hall v.






Vide Agent, 1, 2.

APPRAISAL, (of value on a sale.)
USAGE, (cannot be proved to

contradict express agreement.)
Bosw,-Vol. V. 91


1. Where the owners of property sell
and deliver it to third persons by
whom it is received and enjoyed

of the owners of the vessel, is a
sufficient equitable assignment of
the freight of the goods in such bill
of lading mentioned, and entitles
the assignees to recover that freight
from the shippers of the goods.
Trask v. Jones et al., .... .62

2. The drawing and delivery of a
bank check do not operate as an
assignment to the payee of the
funds in bank to the credit of the
drawer. Butterworth, Receiver, v.
Peck et al., ..



under a written agreement signed
by the vendors and vendees, and
such agreement is, in form and
terms, that the vendors and ven-
dees “constitute and appoint B.
and W. to appraise" the property,
and " bind themselves each to the
other to abide by their valuation of
the same, at which” (the vendors)

agree to sell the same to" the
vendees, and the latter "agree to
buy the same of the vendors; and
in case B. and W. “should be unable
to agree in their valuation, they
shall select a disinterested party, as
usual in such cases, to assist them in
the appraisement;" and where B.
and W., being unable to agree, se-
lected a third person, and the three
met together and examined the pro-
perty, and two of them agreed up-
on a valuation, the vendors are enti-
tled to recover the sum so agreed
upon, although such third person
was selected upon an agreement
between him and B. and W. that
he should fix the value and they
would concur in it, provided that
agreement was abandoned, and the
three did in fact meet and examine
the property together, with a view
to determine its fair value, and the
value so agreed upon was fixed in
good faith, and expressed the honest
judgment of the two who concurred
in respect to it. Haj v. Blossom
et al.,



1. Where goods are taken by the
sheriff under an attachment against
a debtor, and a third person brings
an action against the sheriff for
such taking, claiming the goods as
transferree of the debtor, the sheriff
may show as a defense that the
transfer by the debtor to the plain-
tiff was with intent to defraud
creditors, although the attaching
creditor has not recovered judg-
ment. Thayer v. Willet, Sheriff, 344




2. Where the owner of goods, resid-
ing in Ohio, consigned them to a
factor residing in New York city,
for sale, and such factor, on advice
of shipments of goods from time to
time, and on receipt of bills of
lading for such goods advanced to
the consignor, and on the 6th of

, 1854, the consignee's advances
and charges exceeded in amount
the value of the consigned property
which had then come to hand, but
were less in amount than the value
of the whole consigned property,
(including the value of that for which
bills of lading had been received, but
which had not then arrived,) and all
of such consigned property arrived
by the 15th of June, 1854, and on
subsequent sales produced a surplus,
after paying all advances and
charges, an attachment against the

1. An order drawn by one who has
furnished supplies to a vessel in-
dorsed upon one of her bills of la-
ding and drawn upon the master
requesting him to pay a sum named,
describing it as the freight on the
bill of lading, of which the within
is a copy, and accepted by the mas-
ter with the knowledge and assent

« НазадПродовжити »