Page images
PDF

BOND. (To indemnify against claims due from partnership.) In a breach of the conditions of a probate bond, many things, which will not amount to a legal defence, will reduce the damages. Probate Court v. Bates and another, 10 Vermont, 285. BOOK-ACCOUNT. (Time of making charge.) Where a declaration on book is filed as an offset to a suit pending in a county court, and exceptions are taken to the decision of the county court, accepting the report of the auditor, such decision is an interlocutory judgment, and the exceptions cannot be carried to the supreme court until after a final judgment shall have been rendered in the original action; and if an entry of such exceptions is made in the supreme court it will be treated as a misentry. Fisk v. Herrick, 10 Vermont, 67. BOUNDARY LINE. (Mistake in.) A mutual recognition, by adjoining proprietors, of a wrong line, and their acquiescence in such line, unless accompanied by a continued possession by one or both, for fifteen years, is not conclusive as to their title. Crowell v. Bebee, 10 Vermont, 33. 2. (Mode of calculating.) A grant or exception of a certain number of acres off the west end of a lot in a rectangular form, and the sides being toward the cardinal points, is, in legal intendment, to be divided from the lot by a line parallel with the lot lines. Rich v. Elliott, 10 Vermont, 211. 3. (Same.) Parol evidence is not admissible to contradict such intendment, and show that the parties intended the line to be neither straight nor parallel with the lot lines. Ib. CARRIERS. (Liability of) The defendant, who was the owner of a line of vessels engaged in transporting goods from Philadelphia to Baltimore, received certain goods belonging to the plaintiff, on board of one of his vessels, and gave a receipt in the following words: “Rec'd on board Hand's Line for Baltimore, via Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, from J. B.” (the plaintiff) “100 slaughter hides on deck, which I promise to deliver to J. D. at Baltimore, the dangers of the navigation, fire, leakage and breakage excepted, he or they paying freight eight dollars, and porterage $1,50.” The vessel left Philadelphia, and on arriving at the mouth of the canal, the captain was informed that the locks were out of order, and that he could not be allowed to pass through the canal. He then proceeded down the bay, and out to sea, with the intention of going round to Baltimore, but in a gale of wind the vessel struck on a shoal, and with the cargo was totally lost. Evidence was given on the trial that the hides had been purchased by the plaintiff, and there was no evidence of any property in J. D. the consignee : Held, (1st) That this was a contract to carry the goods to Baltimore through the canal. (2d) That the circumstances did not excuse the deviation from that route. (3d) That the clause in the receipt excepting “the dangers of the navigation,” did not apply to the case of the canal being impassable by inevitable accident or otherwise. (4th) That the plaintiff was entitled to maintain an action against the carrier for the loss of the goods. (5th) That the value of the goods was the proper measure of damages. Hand v. Baynes, 4 Wharton, 204. CASE. (Turning into highway trespassing horses.) A person, finding horses trespassing on his land, may turn them into the highway, and is not liable, though they may be lost in consequence of being so turned into the highway. Humphrey v. Douglass, 10 Vermont, 71. CHANCERY. (Mistake in regard to title.) In a contract for the sale of land, if both parties are under mistake in regard to the title of the vendor, which wss supposed to be perfect, but proves void, this court will relieve the vendee from the contract. Hadlochs v. Williams, 10 Vermont, 570. CONFUSION OF GOODS. (Consequences of and liabilities from.) If A intentionally intermingle his own goods with others of the same quality and value belonging to B, but which A supposed to be his own, such intermixture does not divest A of his property in those which did in fact belong to him ; and if B, knowing that a part of the goods belong to A, take away the whole, he is responsible to A in trespass, for the value of A's goods; or if he take the goods, without such knowledge, although not liable in trespass, he may be in assumpsit, if he has sold the goods, or in trover, after a demand and refusal, if he has not sold them. Ryder v. Hathaway, 21 Pick. 298. 2. (Same.) But if A, in such case, knew that a portion of the goods were not his own, or if he doubted, whether they were or not, and intermingled them in order to mislead B, and prevent him from taking his portion, without danger of taking those of A, then A has, by such fraudulent act, lost his own property, and can have no remedy. Ib. CONSIDERATION. (Notes given for patent.) Where, on the purchase of a patent right, notes are given for the consideration, and those notes are paid after the purchaser had full knowledge, or the means of knowledge of all the facts, such payment is voluntary, and there cannot be a recovery back of the sum paid ; although the purchaser might have avoided payment of the notes for want of consideration. Stevens v. Head, 9 Vermont, 174. 2. (Of contract to indemnify a surety.) If one procure another to become his surety, and subsequently procure a third person to sign a promise of indemnity to the first surety, there being no new consideration, and this not being done in consideration of any contract, made at the time of the original contract, the contract of indemnity is void, for want of consideration. Riz v. Adams and another, 9 Vermont, 233. CONTRACTS. (Joint, to convey land, by persons severally seized.) The plaintiffs agreed jointly to sell and convey to the defendant all their right, title and interest in three certain lots of ground. In an action for a breach of the contract, it appeared that they were separately seized of the three lots. Held, that this was not a sufficient objection to their recovery in the action. Britton v. Stanley, 4 Wharton, 114. 2. (Parties.) When G. in pursuance of a contract with S., delivered S. wool to card, and cloth to dress for him, and S. was then or soon after in the employ of T. and did not carry on the business on his own account, and this was generally known ; Held, that G, was accountable to T. for the services thus performed by S., and as he had notice, before the services were performed, and before any payments were made therefor, that S. was in the employ of T. he was not justified in making any payments to S. Tuttle v. Green, 10 Vermont, 62. 3. (Time of payment.) Where a contract is made for the payment of specific articles, such as the payee should select, at a place designated, but no time is fixed for the payment, such articles are payable on demand. Russell v. Ormsbee, 10 Vermont, 274. 4. (Executory and executed.) A contract executed cannot be dependent upon an executory contract. Hence, where one of two parties executed an assignment, absolute in its terms, of a lease, and at the same time gave a separate writing to surrender the possession on a future day, and the assignee, at the same time, contracted in writing with the assignor, to pay a sum of money on a day before the time of said stipulated surrender, it was held, that on the refusal of the assignor to surrender, according to his contract, the assignee might maintain ejectment for the premises, without having made such payment. Strong v. Garfield, 10 Vermont, 497. - 5. (Same.) Where D. brought a quantity of salts to I. in fulfilment of a written obligation, and after they were weighed and left at the potash of L., a dispute arose whether the contract was or was not for gross freight, and D. refused to have them applied on the contract. and L. refused to receive them in any other way, and indorsed them on the contract; Held, that D. could not maintain an action of debt to recover the value of the salts, thus left with L., as L. refused to receive them, except in payment of the contract. Durrill v. Lawrence and Lamb, 10 Vermont, 517. 6. (Chattel sold to be paid for in services.) Where a gun was sold to be paid for in sawing; Held, that there could be no recovery, until logs were carried to be sawed, so that the party could fulfil his contract. Downer v. Frizzle, 10 Vermont, 541. 7. (Same.) Where the defendant had sawed logs for plaintiff on such a contract, in part, and sued the plaintiff and recovered therefor; Held, that this did not entitle the plaintiff to maintain an action for the gun, without any demand for the sawing, but that he should have resisted the recovery when sued by defendant. Ib. CONVEYANCE. (Exception in deed.) Where land was conveyed with all the buildings standing thereon except the brick factory, it was held, that the grantor's title to the land on which the factory stood and the water privilege appurtenant thereto, did not pass by the deed. Allen v. Scott, 21 Pick. 25. 2. (Boundary line—General and particular description.) Where the line of a lot, mentioned in a deed of conveyance as a boundary of the land conveyed, was not ascertained and known by the parties, and a plan of the land had been taken, which is referred to in the deed as containing a particular description of the land intended to be conveyed, and the description on the plan is clear and unambiguous, referring to monuments, courses and distances which can be ascertained with perfect certainty, and is inconsistent with the boundary line referred to, such particular description will control the words of general description, and the reference to such supposed boundary line will be rejected. Magoun v. Lapham, 21 Pick. 135. 3. (By tenant in common.) A conveyance by a tenant in common, of his undivided interest in a part only of the land held in common, is invalid. Blossom v. Brightman, 21 Pick. 285. CORONE.R. (Service by.) The service of processes by a coroner being by virtue of a special authority, and not coming within the general duties of that officer, all the facts necessary to give him the power should appear in the writ itself; and a general direction to him is not sufficient. Carlisle v. Weston, 21 Pick. 535. 2. (Defect of service cured by appearance.) But where a writ was served by a coroner, and though it did not appear affirmatively on its face that he had authority to serve it, yet it did not appear negatively that he had not such authority, it was held, that the defendant, by appearing and pleading to the action, had cured the defect in the service. Ib. CORPORATION. (Where suit may be brought against.) An

« PreviousContinue »