the equity of the maker must yield to the equity of the holder, although the consideration of the note may have failed, or the maker may have a just set-off against the payee, or the note may have been paid, &c. Is the case of an accommodation-maker to be viewed more favorably?

Such is the case here, and when the true nature of the contract in its origin is properly appreciated, all pretense of a defense under the commercial law disappears. The very object of an accommodation note is to enable the payee, by a sale or other negotiation of it, to obtain a credit with third persons for its amount. It is no defense that the holder knew the note was an accommodation note, if he took it for value, bona fide, before it became due. If, however, an accommodation note had been given for a special object, which was abandoned, and afterwards, in fraud of the maker to whom it should have been given up, it is negotiated, and the endorsee knows or has reason to believe such fraud, his recovery is barred.

Conrey and Rutherford made an arrangement by which Conrey could raise money on these accommodation notes. As Rutherford would have been bound, if the payee had sold the notes, he is equally bound when the payee raises money by pledging them.

On the other question presented, whether the pledge to the plaintiffs is unavailing against the defendant, because it was made without the forms prescribed by the 3125th art. of the civil code, the court says: that a notarial act or pledge, or a written act registered in a notary's office, is a formality necessary to protect the pledgee against third persons; but its omission is unimportant as between the pledgor and pledgee. The object of the law requiring the act of pledge before a notary was to prevent fraud upon creditors.

The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the plaintiff recovers from the defendant $1,980, &c.

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF COUNTY SUBSCRIPTIONS TO RAILROADS IN OHIO.

The Supreme Court of Ohio has decided several cases involving the constitutionality of county subscriptions to railroads when authorized by a vote of the county.

This question is now decided by the court of last resort in Ohio, and in such a way as to settle all the vexatious questions that have been raised in various parts of that State. County railroad bonds will again be sought as legitimate and desirable stock in our Eastern money markets.

The opinion was delivered by Judge Ranney, and went to the entire extent of sustaining the constitutionality and legality of these subscriptions. The announcement was made that the court was unanimous in their views.

The points of the decision which are clearly stated in the subjoined abstract, are of importance to capitalists who hold or may hereafter invest money in the county bonds of Ohio.

Supreme Court of Ohio. The State of Ohio on the relation of the Cincinnati, Wilmington, and Zanesville Railroad Company, vs. The County Commissioners of Clinton county. Mandamus.

1. It is the right and duty of the judicial tribunals to determine, whether a legislative act drawn in question in a suit pending before them, is opposed to the Constitution of the United States, or of the State, and if so found, to treat it as a nullity.

2. In such case the presumption is always in favor of the validity of the law; and it is only when manifest assumption of authority and a clear incompatibility between the constitution and the law appears, that the judicial power will

refuse to execute it.

3. The general assembly, like the other departments of government, exercises only delegated authority; and any act passed by it not falling fairly within the scope of "legislative power," is as clearly void as though expressly pro

hibited.

4. The power of the general assembly to pass laws cannot be delegated by them to any other body, or to the people.

5. The act of March 1, 1851, to authorize the commissioners of said county to subscribe to the capital stock of the relator, does not delegate legislative power or contravene the constitution of 1802, in providing that the subscription shall not be made, until the assent of a majority of the electors of the county (except two townships) is first obtained at an election held for that purpose.

6. It was competent for the legislature under that constitution, to construct works of internal improvement on behalf of the State, or to aid in their construction by subscribing to the capital stock of corporations created for that purpose, and to levy taxes to raise the means; and by a exercise of the same power to authorize a county to subscribe to a work of that character running through or into such county, and to levy a tax to pay the subscription.

7. Such a tax, when thus authorized, is not beyond the legitimate scope of local municipal taxation; nor is it opposed to Art. 8, Sec. 4, of the constitution, declaring that "private property ought and shall ever be held inviolate, but always subservient to the public welfare, provided a compensation in money be made to the owner."

8. The taxing power for such purposes, under that instrument, was an undeniable legislative function, to be exercised at the discretion of the general assembly, and subject to no limitation but that against poll taxes; and while this court is unanimous in the opinion that such laws involve a gross abuse of that power, it possesses no authority to control that discretion or to correct such abuses by the exercise of a veto power on such legislation.

9. A majority of the electors of Clinton county having decided in favor of the subscription, and the same having actually been made before the adoption of the present constitution, and the commissioners having elected in pursuance to said act, to deliver the bonds of the county to the company in payment of the subscription, and become bound to do so, and afterwards refusing upon demand to deliver them, and showing no cause for such refusal, except that the act aforesaid was of doubtful constitutionality; a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to enforce the delivery.

10. This writ lies in all cases where the relator has a clear legal right to the performance of some official or corporate act by a public officer or corporation, and no other adequate specific remedy.

Peremptory mandamus awarded.

THE LOUISIANA HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION LAW.

AN ACT TO EXEMPT THE HOMESTEAD OF A HOUSEHOLDER FROM SEIZURE AND SALE ON EXECUTION, AND ALSO TO EXEMPT FROM EXECUTION, FROM SEIZURE FOR RENT, AND FROM BEING GARNISHED, CERTAIN PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND EFFECTS AND THE WAGES OF LABOR, AND COMPENSATION FOR PROFESSIONAL OR OTHER SERVICES.

SEC. 1. Be it enacted in the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Louisiana, in General Assembly convened, That in addition to the property now exempt from sale under execution, there shall be exempt by Law, from sale on execution, for debts hereafter contracted, the lot or piece of ground, and building thereon, occupied as a residence, and bona fide owned by the debtor having a family, to the value of one thousand dollars; provided that no debtor shall be entitled to the exemption, provided for in this section, whose wife shall own in her own right and be in the actual enjoyment of property worth more than one thousand dollars.

SEC. 2. Be it further enacted, That to entitle any property to the exemption provided in the preceding section, a full and accurate description thereof shall be recorded in the office of the recorder or mortgages of the parish in which said property is situated, in a book to be provided and kept for that purpose, by said recorder, and to be known as the "Homestead Exemption Book;" but no property shall, by virtue of this act, be exempt from sale for non-payment of taxes or assessments levied pursuant to law, or for debt contracted for the purchase of money thereof or prior to the recording of the description of said property as aforesaid.

SEC. S. Be it further enacted, That in addition to the homestead hereinbefore

exempted from sale under execution, there shall be exempt by law, from seizure for rent and sale on execution, such household effects as may be necessary for housekeeping, owned by any person being a housekeeper, or having a family for which he or she provides to the amount of two hundred and fifty dollars; Provided, that such exemption shall not extend to execution issued on a demand for the purchase of money of any of the effects or things in this section specified and contained.

SEC. 4. Be it further enacted, That in addition to the property and effects hereinbefore exempted from seizure, for rent and for sale under execution, there shall also be exempt by law, from seizure for rent and sale on execution, the books of the family library, the family portraits and pictures, the working tools and instruments of any mechanical trade, and the books, instruments, and apparatus of any lawful profession, which may be necessary for the exercise of such trade, or the practice of such profession, and by which any person gains a living for himself and family; Provided, that such exemption shall not extend to any execution, issued on a demand for the purchase of money of any of the articles or things in this section mentioned and contained.

SEC. 5. Be it further enacted, That in addition to the property and effects, hereinbefore exempted from sale, under execution, and from seizure for rent, there shall also be exempted by law, from seizure or attachment, or from being garnisheed, the wages of labor, and the compensation for professional and other services, which shall have been earned and due within at least thirty-one days preceding the issuing of any seizure, attachment, or garnishment against a debtor, to any amount sufficient for the necessary support of any person having a family for which he or she provides, provided that such wages or compensation may in all cases be seized, attached or garnisheed for alimony, furnished to the debtor or his family, and also for rent of the premises occupied by them at the time.

SEC. 6. Be it further enacted, That this act shall take effect from, and after its passage, and that all laws or parts of laws conflicting with this act, or contrary to any of its provisions, are hereby repealed.

CREDITORS-MORTGAGE.

In the Supreme Court at Mount Vernon, (Illinois,) November Term, 1851. John L. Wise, et al. plaintiffs in error, vs. John Shepard defendant in error.

Where there are two creditors of one debtor, the first having two funds to which he may resort for the payment of his debt, while the second creditor has but one, the first creditor shall resort to that fund which he alone can reach, and leave the other fund to the second creditor.

This principle does not extend to a case where one of the creditors has a lien for his debt upon two funds belonging to two separate debtors, and the other has a lien only upon a fund belonging to one of the debtors, so as to compel the first creditor to make his claim wholly out of that debtor which the other cannot reach, unless there should be some peculiar relations between the co-debtors which would make it equitable that the debtor having but one creditor, should pay the whole demand against the two debtors.

Equity will not sanction a principal, which, though just to creditors, is inequitable to debtors.

The assignee of a judgment is subject to the same equities which, as to third parties, would be enforced against the judgment creditor. In equity a judgment creditor is bound to make his debt from the principal if he can find sufficient property to do so, before resorting to the property of the surety.

A junior judgment creditor cannot strengthen his rights, by purchasing a senior judgment, so as to cut off an intervening mortgage executed by one of the senior judgment debtors who became such debtor by reason of being a surety, but the assignee of the senior judgment shall first apply the money made from the estate of the principal of that debt in satisfaction of the senior judgment, instead of the junior, so that the premises mortgaged by the surety may be relieved from the incumbrance of the senior judgment.

ACTION TO RECOVER FOR NON-DELIVERY OF MERCHANDISE.

In Common Pleas, (New York City,) February 5, 1852. Before Judge Woodruff. William H. Ellis vs. David & Joseph Newman.

This was an action to recover damages for the alleged wrongful detention and conversion of cigars, valued at $672.

The plaintiff alleged that he purchased the cigars in question at defendants' establishment, through his agent, Mr. Winslow, a broker; that he gave in payment a note and some cash; that the cigars were packed up, but not actually delivered; that defendants subsequently refused to deliver them.

The plaintiff claims to recover at the highest rate of market price of cigars at the time, inasmuch as cigars had risen afterwards, in the market, as much as ten per cent.

The defendants showed that they offered to return the money and note, and refused to deliver the cigars, because the note, which was for $468, was not satisfactory, it having been made by a third person and sold for a $400. It was also alleged the bill was $100 more than the difference of cash paid. This was explained-two bills having been made out, one correct, and another for $100 more than the actual price.

The jury in this case retired, and returned with a verdict which the court considered irregular. They should find either for the plaintiff or defendant. The jury, thereupon, reconsidered their verdict, and found for the plaintiff $601 65.

BREACH OF WRITTEN AGREEMENT.

The Circuit Court (New York,) March 24, 1852. Before Justice Mitchell, William A. Burtis vs. Charles E. Magrath.

This was an action to recover damages for breach of written agreement, executed 19th February, 1850, in refusing to take possession and pay two quarters' rent ($552 25) and interest for a house in 14th street. Answer admitted execution of agreement, but alleging that it had been surrendered and annulled, and a new one substituted, whereby possession was to be given the 1st of April and again changed to possession the 1st of May, when one quarter's rent was to be paid in advance, with a rebate of three months' interest.

Judge charged that it was a question of credibility of the witness, whether another instrument was substituted or not; and that, if defendant's witness was to be believed, then he would allow an amendment of the pleadings, so that, if the jury believed that the house was finished as the defendant's witness testified, by the 1st of May, then plaintiff should recover, unless they believed that plaintiff's family occupied it for any other purpose than merely to take charge of it until a tenant could be found. Sealed verdict for plaintiff for $278 63.

ACCOMMODATION NOTE-USURY.

In the Superior Court, February 2, 1852, Before Chief Justice Oakley. The Mechanics' Banking Association against Thomas Johnson, Charles Swift, Charles McNeill, and Daniel Griffin.

This was an action on a promissory note for $575 00, dated 3d September, 1850, discounted by plaintiffs for defendant Griffin; it was made by defendant Johnson, to the order of the defendant Swift, and indorsed by him and the defendant McNeill. The defendant McNeill had suffered judgment by default to be entered in the progress of the cause for want of answer.

The defense was that the note was a purely accommodation note, on the part of all the defendants, except Mr. Griffin; that it was given for the accommodation of one Nathaniel W. Roberts who passed it to M. Griffin; that the latter and Roberts made a usurious agreement on the same, in that Roberts gave it to Griffin to secure repayment of a loan of money for $541'00, instead of its face, and that it was held for forbearance of the debt until it was at maturity. The testimony sustained the facts as above stated.

The court charged the jury, who found a verdict for plaintiffs against Mr. Griffin, for $611 43, and in favor of defendants Johnson and Swift.

COMMERCIAL CHRONICLE AND REVIEW.

GENERAL STATE OF THE

COUNTRY-ABUNDANCE

OF CAPITAL-INFLUENCE OF AN EASY MONEYMARKET UPON THE BANKS-CONDITION OF THE BANKS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ON THE 27TH OF MARCH-STIMULANTS TO OVERTRADING AND EXTRAVAGANCE-SUPPLY OF BONDS FOR INVESTMENT -RAILROAD BONDS AS A BASIS FOR BUILDING-RESOURCES OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN-EFFECT OF THE CHEAPNESS OF BREADSTUFFS UPON THE DEMAND FOR COTTON-PROSPECTS FOR COTTON SPINNING AND OTHER MANUFACTURING-INFLUENCE OF THE INCREASED SUPPLY OF GOLD UPON THE CURRENCY OF THE WORLD-REACTION OF THE GENERAL PROSPERITY UPON THE MARKET FOR CEREALS-DEPOSITS AND COINAGE AT THE PHILADELPHIA AND NEW ORLEANS MINTS-IMPORTS AT NEW YORK FOR APRIL-INCREASE IN GOODS WITHDRAWN FROM WAREHOUSE AND THROWN UPON THE MARKET-IMPORTS FOR FOUR MONTIIS-IMPORTS OF DRY GOODS FOR APRIL, AND FOR FOUR MONTHS-RECEIPTS OF DUTIES AT NEW YORK FOR APRIL, AND FOR FOUR MONTHS-EXPORTS FROM NEW YORK FOR FOUR MONTHS-EXPORTS OF DOMESTIC COTTONS-NEW IMPULSE TO THE CALIFORNIA TRADE, KTC.

Our readers will remember that early in the present year we noticed the indications of increased prosperity, and expressed our belief that the reign of panic and distrust was over for the season. In spite of the sneers of some cotemporary writers, who could see no tokens of encouragement, and thought us altogether too sanguine, our predictions have been fully realized. In all of our principal cities on the Atlantic seaboard capital is offered in abundance at 4 to 5 per cent for short loans, and prime business paper is readily sold by street brokers at 4 a 5 per cent per annum. The applications to the banks for discounts are so light that all of those institutions, not having a large circle of regular customers, are compelled to purchase of the brokers, and even then have a difficulty in investing their funds except at low rates. This would not in itself be considered as an evil did it not sow the seeds of future trouble. In the first place, it diminishes the legitimate income of the banks, and leads them to improper investments, in order to keep up their large semi-annual dividends. It was once a point of honor with the conservative portion of these institutions to manage their affairs prudently, and keep the even tenor of their way, regardless of outside influences. Of late there has been unusual competition to see which should make the largest dividends, aud many of the sound maxims and judicious cautions once strictly regarded, have been lost sight of in the exciting race for large profits. It thus happens that instead of regulating and restricting the course of the extravagant, they directly encourage it, and then assist in the final disaster. When the future seems bright they encourage borrowers, and expand their accommodations far beyond the limits of prudence; the moment a cloud appears, they are obliged to contract their business, and this precipitates the evil anticipated. The true course would be undoubtedly the reverse of this, but then what would become of 8 or 10 per cent dividends? This course is fraught with so much danger, that we should not be surprised if a remedy were adopted in some of the States, prohibiting, by legal enactment, the division of profits in any one year of more than the established rate of interest.

We gave in our last a summary of the condition of the New York city banks on the 27th of March last, the day on which the quarterly returns were made up per order of the Controller-we now annex a similar statement, embracing all the banks in that State :