페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

legal representatives a reasonable opportunity to subscribe to the same, and in violation of their rights disposed of said 524, shares on or about December 15, 1918, to its directors, or some of them. . It is also alleged in article sixth on information and belief that the plaintiff's testator received no advance notice of the stockholders' meeting held on October 24, 1918, and had no knowledge that the meeting was being held, and that no advance notice of the meeting was given or sent to him at his last known post office address.

The answer, in addition to denials of various allegations of the complaint, contains a separate affirmative defense to the first cause of action, in which there are no denials, and which, among other things, allege as follows:

"On or about October 24, 1918, the capital stock of the defendant was duly increased from $2,000,000, divided into 20,000 shares, of the par value of $100 each, to $5,000,000, divided into 50,000 shares, of the par value of $100 each, pursuant to a resolution duly adopted by more than a majority of the stockholders of the defendant, at a meeting of the stockholders duly held on October 24, 1918. A copy of the notice of said meeting, stating the purpose thereof, was inclosed in a sealed, postpaid envelope, addressed to Albert Sherman Hoyt, Post Office Box 250, Yokohama, Japan, which was the address of the said Albert Sherman Hoyt appearing on the books of the defendant, and the last address which he had furnished it, and was his last address known to the defendant, and was duly mailed on or about October 7, 1918. Accompanying the said notice was a circular letter to the defendant's stockholders, stating the reasons for the said increase of its capital stock, and that it was of great importance to have all the new stock issued and paid for before the end of the year 1918, and further stating that the new stock would be issued to the stockholders, in proportion to their holdings, at $150 a share, and that one-half of the purchase price would be called for in about 30 days from the time of the increase, and the remaining one-half in about 60 days. * * * At the times hereinbefore mentioned and for some time prior thereto, the defendant had, pursuant to authorization from the said Albert Sherman Hoyt, sent checks for dividends on the stock standing in his name to the Title Guarantée & Trust Company, 175 Remsen street, Brooklyn, New York, and knowing that there would not be time for the said Albert Sherman Hoyt to exercise his right to subscribe for a proportionate part of the increased stock within the time fixed for the stockholders, if the subscription warrant were sent to him at his registered address in Japan, above mentioned, the defendant sent a copy of said letter of October 25, 1918, to the said Title Guarantee & Trust Company, with a letter inquiring whether it was authorized to take any action in connection with the said subscription rights on the said stock standing in the name of Albert Sherman Hoyt. In reply to the said letter the Title Guarantee &

Trust Company informed the defendant that the said Albert Sherman Hoyt had returned to America, and that his counsel in New York City, who attended to all his personal business affairs, were Steele & Otis, 25 Broad street, New York City, and that the matter should be taken up with them. The defendant fully believed that the said Steele & Otis did have charge of the personal business affairs of the said Albert Sherman Hoyt, and it accordingly sent the subscription warrants, covering the rights on the said stock standing in the name of the said Albert Sherman Hoyt, to the said Steele & Otis, on or about November 4, 1918, and asked them for instructions in regard to the exercise of the said rights, but the defendant received no instructions from them.”

It is conceded by both parties that it is the law of this state that an old stockholder has a vested right to take his proportionate share of the new or increased stock at par, in the absence of laches or acquiescence. It is likewise conceded that a majority of the old stockholders have a right to fix reasonable conditions and regulations concerning an increase of stock, particularly as to time. Stokes v. Continental Trust Co., 186 N. Y. 285, 78 N. E. 1090, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 969, 9 Ann. Cas. 738; Sommer v. Armor Gas & Oil Co., 71 Misc. Rep. 211, 128 N. Y. Supp. 382.

The only question, therefore, presented by this demurrer, is whether or not a reasonable notice, or any notice whatever, of the right of the plaintiff's testator to subscribe to his proportionate share of the increased stock was ever given. It appears from paragraph 1 of the separate defense that the address of plaintiff's testator appearing on the books of the defendant was. "Post Office Box 250, Yokohama, Japan.” It is not alleged that any such notice was mailed to said address, or any other address specifically authorized or designated by plaintiff's testator; but in lieu thereof an excuse for not sending such a notice is set forth in paragraph 3 of said separate defense.

Stockhoiders are entitled to a reasonable time in which to subscribe. A reasonable time was not given to the plaintiff's testator; in fact, no time at all was given to him, as it appears on the face of the separate defense that no notice whatever was sent to him, and the facts set forth in lieu thereof do not constitute iaches or waiver, within the meaning of Sommer v. Armor Gas & Oil Co., supra.

Demurrer sustained, with $10 costs.

NOTE:--Right of Stockholder to Subscribe to New Issue of Stock.–Upon an increase in capital stock of a corporation, a stockholder is entitled to maintain his proportionate influence, and for that reason must be given an opportunity to purchase a proportionate amount of the new shares before they can be offered to outsiders.

Kingston v. Home Life Ins. Co., Del., 101 Atli Following the afternoon session on Thursday, 898; Hammer v. Cash, Wis., 178 N. W. 465. ! there will be an excursion on Lake Kampesa, However, an issue of new stock may be upon

and in the evening the annual dinner will be such terms as is voted by the stockholders within the scope of legislative sanction, and accord

given at the Country Club. ingly stockholders may surrender or be deprived of their right to subscribe to new stock. Brown 1. Boston & M. R. Co., Mass., 124 N. E. 322.

Where an increase in the capital stock of a railroad was authorized by amendment of its

HUMOR OF THE LAW. articles of incorporation for the purpose of building an extension, and it was provided that stock not necessary to be sold should be held, a stock

When young he seemed quite promising, holder is not entitled under the amendment to

Did little Willie Thomas, purchase a proportionate number of new shares And, true to form, he grew up and and, the extension being abandoned, an issue of Was sued for breach of promise. new stock to the president, who was a shareholder, was unlawful. Hammer v. Cash, Wis., 178 N. W. 465.

Scene, a South Carolina courthouse. Judge, The directors of a corporation cannot vote a Irish. Prisoner, Irish. Accuser, a six-foot nenew issue of stock and subscribe for it them

gro whose jaw bone had been broken by the selves, without giving the stockholders generally

Irish fireman. an opportunity to subscribe in proportion to their existing holdings. Glenn v. Kittanning Brewing "And you say this perfectly respectable sailor Company, 259 Pa. 510; 103 Atlantic 340. There broke your jaw without you ever having spoken is a valuable note appended to this case in L. R. to him, and you a complete stranger?" "Yes, A. 1918 D, 741.

judge; ah was just sitting on a stone pile takin' One who acquires corporate stock without

the sun when this man struck me full on the knowledge that the corporation had previously given third person exclusive right to subscribe

jaw." "But you must have done something?" to corporate stock to be thereafter issued, can “No, judge; ah was just sittin' in the sun." not attack such contract. Kingston v. Home Life "But why should this perfectly decent stranger Ins. Co., 101 Atl. 898.

break your jaw if you were just sitting in the A stockholder who is entitled to a share of an

sun?" increase of stock saves his rights by protesting against the sale of it to another, without making

“Beats me, judge. Ah don't know; ah was a demand for his stock and tender of the price.

just sittin' in the sun singing when—" Stokes y. Continental Trust Company, 186 N. Y. “Ah, singing," says the judge; "what were 285; 78 N, E. 1090, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 969. you singing?”

"Ah was just humming 'Sure Ireland must = be heaven, for me mudder came from dere'.”

ITEMS OF PROFESSIONAL

The following letter was received by a wholeINTEREST.

sale merchant from a country merchant:

Dear Sir: PROGRAM OF THE MEETING OF THE

I received your letter about what I owes you. SOUTH DAKOTA BAR ASSOCIATION.

Now be pashent. I ain't forgot you, and as

folks pays me I'll pay you, but if this was judgThe twenty-second annual meeting of the

ment day and you was no more prepared to South Dakota Bar Association will be held at

meet your God, than I am to meet your account, Watertown, August 3 and 4, 1921.

then you show would go to Hell. The annual address of the President will be Good by

Bill Jones. made by Mr. Claude L. Jones, of Parker. The -The Docket. annual address will be made by Mr. Robert L. Stewart, of Chicago. Other addresses will

"Sages tell us that the best way to get the be made by the following: “Economic and

most out of life is to fall in love with a great Juridicial Consideration of Hydo-Electrics, apro.

problem or a beautiful woman." pos Chapter 257, Laws 1921," by Mr. William

"Why not choose the latter and get both ?" M. Potts, of Mobridge; "Small Claims Court Procedure," by Hon. John Howard Gates, of the Supreme Court of South Dakota; “The Tommy: What does LL.D, after a man's name Tendencies of Our Profession," by Mr. George

mean? Philip, of Rapid City; "The Bench and the Jimmy: I guess it means that he's a lung Bible," by Mr. James Brown, of Chamberlain. | and liver doctor.

25

[ocr errors]

65

56, 59

...20

WEEKLY DIGEST.

chaser for value before maturity and without notice or any defense, where there was no evidence to justify conclusion that plaintiff was

guilty of bad faith, and where plaintiff knew Weekly Digest of Important Opinions of the maker by reputation, knew or believed that he

was financially good, and purchased the note State Courts of Last Resort and of the Federal

from a reputable citizen without being in any Courts.

way brought into contact with the payee or the Copy of Opinion in any case referred to in this digest

other indorsers except one who represented

that the note was regular, the court properly may be procured by sending a5 cents to us or to the West

pay the instrument according to the tenor of Pub. Co., St. Paul, Minn.

plaintiff bank had purchased note in good faith, and declared it a good-faith purchaser as a

matter of law,-Farmers' State Bank v. Betcher, Alabama.

............ 3, 9, 38, 51,

Wash., 197 Pac. 15.
California
Idaho

8.- Liability of Acceptor.-Under Negotiable Illinois

Instruments Law, $ 112, providing that the acIndiana.......

32, 3

ceptor by his acceptance engages that he will Kansas

......21, 42

took from the jury the question of whether Maryland.

14, 24, 33 his acceptance, and admits the existence of the Massachusetts

........ 23 67 drawer, the genuineness of his signature, his Michigan

48 authority to draw, the existence of the payee, Minnesota ...

..........1,

62 and his then capacity to indorse, an acceptance Mississippi.

gives a draft the effect of a promissory note; Missouri.......

......6, 34, 36 the acceptor being liable as maker and the Nebraska .....

........18, 37

drawer as first indorser.--Anglo & London-Paris New Jersey

.......22 Nat. Bank v. S. A. Jacobson Co., N. Y., 187 N. New York..... .2, 8, 44, 45

Y. S. 508. Pennsylvania

61, 66 Rhode Island

9.---Place of Signature.--In view of Acts

........30 South Carolina.....

.40, 60

1909. $ 126, defining a bill of exchange, an averSouth Dakota.......

10, 28,

ment that a bill of exchange was drawn by deTennessee

fendant is under Code 1907. § 5382, subd. 3. Texas..

12, 27, 31, 43, 52

equivalent to an averment that it was signed United States C. C. A

5, 16, 19, 49, 63

by defendant, and has the same effect as an alUnited States S. C......

...15, 17, 41, 53

legation under subd. 1 that the note was "made' Washington

...7, 61, 64 by defendant.-Knox v. Rivers Bros., Ala., 88

So. 33. 1. Adoption — Collateral Attack.---When the 10.---Transfer to Maker.- Under Rev. Code adoptive parents obtain the decree they asked 1919. § 1822, subd. 5. declaring a negotiable infor and take the child into the family and treat strument discharged when the principal debtor it as their own, they and their heirs and per becomes the holder thereof after maturity in his sonal representatives are estopped from assert own right, the obligation on a note and check ing that the child was not legally adopted. of the maker there or is extinguished where In re Reichel, Minn., 182 N. W. 517.

after they are overdue one holding them as col2. Attorney and Client-Contingent Fee.

lateral for the debt of another transfers them Where attorneys were employed on a contingent

to such maker under the guise of a sale to him fee of one-third of any recovery, a settlement

of such debt with a transfer of the collateral. by the client without their consent was not a

Auwes v. Farmers' Bank, S. D., 182 N. W. 528. breach of the agreement of retainer, and they 11. Brokers -- Withdrawal of Principal. were only entitled to one-third of the amount Where R, to whom brokers were authorized to of the settlement.-Lefkowitz v. Leblang. N. Y.. make an offer to exchange properties, had no187 N. Y. S. 520.

tice that the principal had withdrawn the offer, 3. Bankruptcy - False Pretenses. -- Under and one of the agents took him to view the Bankruptcy Act, § 17a, as amended by Act

property merely in the hope that he and the Feb. 5. 1903. providing that a discharge does not

principal would come to an understanding, and, release liabilities for obtaining property by false

in accepting the offer, notwithstanding the withpretenses or false representations, a debt cre

drawal, R relied on a statement in the offer ated by fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation

that it would not be revoked, and not on anyis not affected by the discharge, and is not with

thing done by the agents, they were not liable in the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy

for the principal's expenses in defending R's court.-M. C. Kiser Co. v. Gerald, Ala., 88 So. 49.

suit for specific performance.--Roth V. Moeller.

Cal., 197 Pac. 62. 4- Operation of Bankruptcy Suit.-A suit instituted under the Bankruptcy Law to have a

12. Carriers of Goods-Measure of Damages. citizen declared a bankrupt takes out of the

-The measure of damages for loss of household hands of his creditors the ordinary remedial

goods by a carrier is their actual or reasonable processes, suspends the ordinary right to sue

value at destination at the time they should which the creditor has, and puts in place there

have been delivered. as distinguished from a of a new and comprehensive remedy for the

fanciful or sentimental value, where the goods creditor designed for the benefit of all cred are secondhand and have no standard market itors: the term "bankruptcy" meaning the status value.--Hines v. Warden, Tex., 229 S. W. 957. of a person made subject of the application of 13. Carriers of Passengers-Degree of Care. a bankruptcy law.-Norin v. Scheldt Mfg. Co., -In action for death of prospective interurban Ill., 130 N. E. 791.

car passenger, waiting for car at crossing which 5. Surrender Value of Life Insurance Pol was not a regular stopping place, and at which icy.—Where a bankrupt's trustee has become the car stopped only on signal, when struck by owner, as an asset of the estate, of a policy of

freight car which had not stopped after answerinsurance on the bankrupt's life, having a sur

ing signal by blasts of whistle signifying that render value, payable to bankrupt's wife as a it would not stop, the deceased as to such beneficiary, but containing a provision that the freight car was not a passenger within the rule insured could change the benefieiary "from time as to degree of care required of railroad toward to time with the consent of the company by passengers.-Van Sickle v. Grand Rapids, G. H. written notice to said company," provided, how & M. Ry. Co., Mich., 182 N. W. 132. ever, that "no other than the insured's estate,

14.- Negligence.-In an action against a carfather, mother, husband, wife or dependent rier for death of an intending passenger, struck child will be made beneficiary under this pol

and killed by one of its trains, held. that it icy," the company has no interest which can

could not be said as a matter of law that a justify its refusal to pay the surrender value to

speed of from 12 to 30 miles per hour on its the trustee.--In re Greenberg, U. S. C. C. A., own right-of-way in such case constituted neg271 Fed. 258.

ligence.- Washington. B. & A. E. Ry. Co, 1", 6. Banks and Banking-Lien on Deposit.--A State, Md., 113 Atl. 338. bank has a lien on a deposit for the depositor's

15.—--Rates.- Where the United States reindebtedness to it, and may apply the deposit

quested a railroad company to furnish transon the indebtedness.--Lebreicht v. New State

portation for men in the military service and Bank, Mo., 229 S. W. 285.

accepted the service without arranging for a 7. Bills and Notes-Good Faith.-In action on different ar reduced rate, as it might under Ina note in which plaintiff claimed to be a pur- I ter state Commerce Act, $ 9. it assented to and W. J., 113 Atl. 242

n a. it was error

mine this rate bu

ad rudenta poster

became obligated to pay the established rate of foreliable.-Frawley v. Tenafly Transp. Co., the carrier under Act July 27, 1866, § 5, less any lawful land grant deduction, and it was error

23. Libel by Controlled Company.-A pubto determine this rate by combining the party

lishing company, organized by a Socialist pub rate covering a part only of the distance, and

lishing company to serve as mouthpiece for the the individual rate for the remainder, and then

latters propaganda, being a corporate entity making any deductions on account of land

until dissolved, is liable for its own libels. but grants.-Atchison, T. & S. F. Ky. Co v. United

the technical distinction of two distinct organStates, U. S. S. C., 41 Sup. Ct. 456.

izations cannot be invoked by the Socialist pub16. Commeree-Posting of Bills on Billboards.

lishing company to defeat the cause of action ----Assuming that the business of advertising

against it on the part of a society libeled by the solicitors in sending their customers' advertise

controlled publishing company, both publishing ments to be posted on billboards in various

companies being jointly and severally responsitowns and cities throughout the country is, as

ble to the libeled society. -Finnish Temperance between them and their customers, interstate

Soc. Sovittaja V. Publishing Co., Mass., 130 N. commerce, after the posters arrive at destina

L. 845. tion, the posting of them by bill posters is a 24. Damages--Breach of Contract. In corpurely local service, only incidentally affecting porations action for breach of contract to sell interstate commerce, and rules of an association mis stock, plaintiff could not recover items of of bill posters, prohibiting its members from costs incurred by it in a stock-selling campaign accepting work from solicitors not licensed by begun by it on its own account before abanthe association, regulating prices for bill post donment by deiendant broker, and, according to ing and prohibiting licensed solicitors irom em its own contention, undertaken with the conploying other bill posters, do not violate Sher sent of defendant, since these costs could not man Act.-Charles A. Ramsay Co. v. Associated have been charged to defendant if it had perBill Posters of the United States and Canada, formed its part of the contract.-Middenaorf, L. S. C. C. A., 271 Fed. 140.

Williams & Co. v. Alexander Milburn Co., Md.,

113 Atl. 348. 17.--Taxation of Intangible Property--company, having by contract an exclusive right

25.- Destruction of Trees.-The measure of to operate an electric railroad over a bridge

damages for the destruction of trees cannot be over the Mississippi River at St. Louis and hav

based solely upon the cost of their production ing profitable operating arrangements with

to the time of such loss.-- Watkins V. Mountain connecting street railway companies, whereby

Home Co-operative Irr. Co., Idaho,.197 Pac. 247. it has considerable earning capacity on a small 26. Electricity-Contract for Rates.- Where extent of physical property, has intangible prop by ordinance a power company was given the erty other than its mere right to conduct inter use of the city streets, and, subject to a provistate passenger traffic over the bridge, and a sion for maximum rates and for aritration, was tax on such intangible property is not invalid given the right to charge for commercial light as a direct tax and burden on the right to en and power rates which it might fix, no amendgage in interstate commerce-St. Louis & E. St. ment of the ordinance was required to permit L. Electric Ry. Co. v. State of Missouri, U. S. it by contract to fix such rates for an agreed S. C., 41 Sup. Ct. 488.

period, or to make a binding contract with the 18. Contracts Effects of World War. The city to exercise its right to make charges in a court will take judicial notice of the conditions

certain way, nor would such a contract operate that attended the prosecution of the world war,

as an amendment of the ordinance.- City of and the effect of such conditions upon the coun

Saginaw v. Consumers' Power Co., Mich., 182 try at large, and as affecting building and other

N. W. 146. construction activities generally.---Home Build

27. Explosives — Negligence. — In action ers V. Busk, Neb., 182 N. W. 589.

against an oil company for negligence in leav19.- Partial Breach-In a contract between

ing oil barrels not completely emptied in the plaintiff and defendant, who were competing

rear of a grocery store, where during a fire theater proprietors, and a booking office where

burning the store and other buildings the barrel by plaintiff's exclusive right to booking privi

exploded and injured plaintiff while assisting leges of the office were transferred to defend

in extinguishing the fire, a directed verdict for ant, and plaintiff promised to refrain from ex

defendant held proper, the evidence showing hibiting vaudeville in his theater during the

that defendant used the same method as other contract, and was to receive a stipulated weekly

oil companies in delivering, emptying, and repayment, the promise to refrain from the exhi

moving their oil barrels, and indicating that bition of vaudeville was not the sole considera

the drayman in charge of such delivery and tion for the weekly payments, and hence a

removal by any method he saw fit to use was not breach of such promise was a partial breach

defendant's agent or servant, but an independonly.- Princess Amusement ('o, vWells, U. S.

ent contractor.-Williams v. Gulf Refining Co., ('. C. A., 271 Fed. 226.

Tex., 229 S. W. 959. 20.- Public Policy - Contracts between a

28. Frauds, Statute of-Authority of Auctionstreet car company and its employes, whereby

eer.- The authority of an auctioneer to sell land they agreed not to join any labor union during

at auction must be in writing, and an auctioneer the term of their service, not violating any pro

who is not authorized in writing cannot make vision of the state or federal constitution or

a memorandum which will bind the owner of statutes or any rule of the common law, are not

land sold under Civ. Code, $ 1347, even though contrary to "public policy," which means that

the owner of the land and his wife are present principles of the law which holds that no sub

at the sale, in view of $1238, subd. 5. requiring ject can lawfully do that which has a tendency

authority of agent to be in writing.-Corner V. to be injurious to the public or against the pub

O'Malley, S. D., 182 N. W. 530. lic good.--Nashville Ry & Light Co, v. Lawson, 29. Fraudulent Conveyances-Sign Statute, Tenn., 229 S. W. 741.

Conduct of business by bankrupt's wife with 21. Corporations-Cancellation of Stock, - husband as manager without sign on building Where buyer of stock contracted to become

held not a violation of the Sign Statute.-Rubbound therefor only on its transfer on the

enstein v. Lynchburg Shoe Co., Miss.. 88 So. 14. books, and on turning it in for transfer the cor

30. Garnishment - Property Taken as Eviporation cancelled it under order of the Charter dence.-Money or other property taken from Board, he never became its owner, and 80 far prisoner at time of his arrest, upon belief that as he was concerned there was no conversion. it is connected with the crime charged, or might

-Lilley V. Sterling Oil & Refining Co., Kan., be used by the prisoner in effecting his escape, 197 Pac. 201.

is subject to garnishment in the hands of the 22. De Facto. -- Where three individuals

officer, notwithstanding Gen. Laws 1909, c. 354, signed a certificate of incorporation two days

$ 30, providing that such property shall be subbefore the happening of an accident for which

ject to the order of the court, in the absence the company was sued for damages, which cer

of collusion between creditors and officers. tificate was recorded in the county clerk's office

Fitzgerald v. Nickerson, R. I.. 113 Atl. 290. the day after the accident and filed in the sec

31. Husband and Wife Separate Property. retary of state's office four days after the acci Where a broker, when he secured husband and dent, and they did certain acts in attempted wife's contract to sell a lot, knew that it execution of the powers conferred by the rer then homestead and her separate property, the tificate of incorporation, a iury was justified husband, who, although his wife refused to conin finding that the company was, at the time of vey, was ready and willing to make conveyance the accident. a corporation de facto, and there | as far as he could, was not liable in damages

to the broker for his wife's failure to carry out his undertaking. -Collett v. Harris, Tex., 229 S. W. 885.

32.- Unenforceable Note.-Where a husband executes a promissory note or promises to pay his wife to resume the performance of her marital duties, where she has abandoned the same, or to continue their performance, where she is threatening such abandonment, the note or agreement is without consideration and is not enforceable against the husband or his estate, unless at the time of the execution of said instrument or the making of such promise the wife was absolved from the discharge of such marital duties by reason of the wrongful conduct of the husband.-Bowers V. Alexandria Bank, Ind., 130 N E. 808.

33. Injunction--Interfering with Lease. --Where hotel company. having been enjoined from intefering with lease of barber to whom it had given the exclusive right to operate barber shop in the hotel, leased a roon in the hotel to another barber, a petition by the holder of the prior lease to restrain the hotel company from permitting another barber shop to be maintained in the hotel, and to restrain the other barber from operating his shop in the hotel. was properly filed in the action in which the prior injunction was granted, instead of by original bill in separate proceeding.-Belvedere Hotel Co. v. Williams, Md., 113 Atl. 333.

34. Insurance Confined to Bed."--The provision of an industrial insurance policy for payment of sick benefits when insured is necessarily confined to bed does not mean that insured should be confined to her bed all of the time, but should be bedridden in a substantial sense, and insurer cannot escape paying sick benefits because insurer could not lie in bell owing to a bad heart.-North v. National Life & Accident Ins. Co. of Nashville, Tenn., Mo., 229 S. W. 298.

35.- Delivery of Policy. Where an insurance company executed a policy and sent it to an agent in this state to be delivered when the insured furnished a health certificate by one of its examining physicians, but no such provisions were in the policy, but in a letter of instructions, and the agent delivered the policy without complying with the instructions, the delivery by the agent is the act of the company, under $ 2615, Code 1906 ($5078, Hemingway's Code), and the policy is valid in the hands of the insured or his beneficiary, though no health certificate was furnished the agent or the company.--Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Vaughan, Miss., $8 So. 11.

36.- Delivery of Policy.-In an action to recover on an insurance policy, the fact of delivery or nondelivery is an affirmative defense, and plaintiff, introducing the policy and proving the death of insured by external bodily injuries accidentally received, has made out a prima facie case. -Lafferty v. Kansas City Casualty Co., Mo., 229 S. W. 750.

37.- Mutual Mistake.--In respect to correcting a mutual mistake in reducing a contract of insurance to writing, a mutual insurance company is bound by the rules of equity and the principles of law applicable to other corporations and individuals.-Central Granaries ('o. v. Nebraska Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Ass'n, Seb., 182 N. W. 582.

38. Irtoxicating Liquors - Admissibility of Evidence. In a prosecution for the making of whisky, testimony of witness, to the effect that he had been to the place in question before, and found some beer there, was admissible in evidience, but reference by the witness to any other time he had been to the place in question prior to the time it was alleged defendant was found making whisky was not admissible, being relevant to show a preparation on the part of somebody to distill liquor and to identify the place at which the liquor was made.-Dozier v. State, Ala., 88 So. 54.

39.- Possession for Unlawful Purpose. Mere finding of a large amount of wine in one's residence did not indicate an intention to keep such wine for sale, under Prohibition Act, $$ 5, 35.—Burzov. State, Ind., 130 N. E. 796.

40.- State Statutes. The statutes of the state in regard to the manufacture, sale and transportation of intoxicating liquors for bevforage purposes were not repealed by the Eightrenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Whenever the enforcement of such legis

lation would aid in carrying into effect the provisions of the amendment.--State v. Hartley, S. C., 106 S. E. 766.

41. Landlord and Tenant-Agreed Service.| Laws N. Y. 1920, c. 951, making it a misde

meanor for a lessor or any agent or janitor intentionally to fail to furnish such water, heat, light. elevator, telephone, or other service as may be required by the terms of the lease and necessary to the proper or customary use of the building, does not violate Const. Amend. 13, since the services in question are not strictly personal services, but are analogous to services that under the old law might issue out of or be attached to land.-Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman, V. S. S. C., 41 Sup. Ct. 465.

42.- Damage to Crops. - It is not error to refuse an instruction that a lessee of meadow and pasture land could not recover damages for injury to an ensuing crop of grass, where there is competent evidence to support the lessee's claim of injury thereto.-Otey V. Midland Valley R. Co., Kan., 197 Pac. 203.

43.- Lien on Crops-Though a landlord allowed his tenant to sell crops and deposit the rent to his credit. thus waiving his lien as to purchasers, the lien given by Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ, St. 1914, art. 5175 et seq., as amended by Laws 1915, c. 38, was not waived with respect to a judgment creditor of the tenant who levied on unsold crops.- Jarrell-Evans Dry Goods Co. V. Allen, Tex., 229 S. W. 920.

44.- Notice-Where the petition of the landlord for removal of his tenant alleges all the facts required by Code Civ. Proc., § 2231, to give the court jurisdiction of the proceedings, the omission to allege that the landlord had given the tenant the notice required by Laws 1882, e. 303, as amended by Law's 1920, c. 209, does not defeat the court's jurisdiction, where it was alleged that the tenant notified the landlord he would surrender the premises at the end of the term, since the latter statute does not give the court any new jurisdiction, but merely states a condition precedent for the benefit of the tenant, which he waived by giving notice of his intention to remove.-A. N. P. Realty Co. v: Tunick, N. Y., 182 X. Y. S. 437.

45.- Ratification of contract.No ratification of the contract of tenancy can debar the tenant from interposing, under Laws 1920, cc. 944, 945, that the rent is unreasonable and oppressive.-B. & S. Realty Corporation y. Wald. N. Y., 187 N. Y. S. 436.

46.- Reasonable Rental.–Atenant is not entitled to a lower rental than would otherwise be reasonable merely because a landlord will obtain a fair return upon his whole investment through higher rates paid by other tenants, since no rental can be considered "reasonable" which is less than the amount which would be fixed by ordinary competition, and, in addition is less than would afford the landlord a fair return upon his investment. if applied to all the apartments in the same house.Elvira Realty Co. v. Bracegirdle, N. Y., 187 N. Y. S. 519.

47. Libel and Slander-Counter-Claims.-Alleged slanders of defendant by plaintiff. Whether spoken before or after the libel on which the complaint is based, do not constitute a justification for the libel, or amount to a defense to the action therefor. Udovichky V. Bacheff. N. Y.. 187 N. Y. S. 474.

48. Licenses-Shares of Unincorporated Association-Shares into which capital of unincorporated association, organized under the common law, having a declaration of trust in favor of the association reported in the office of the register of deeds of the county, and for which certificates were issued, held "stock" within the Blue Sky Law, the association being an "investment company within 2. defining an "investment company" as any "person, corporation, copartnership, company, or association" not specifically exempted, organized, or to be organized, whether incorporated or unincorporated, which sells or negotiates for the sale of any stocks, bonds, or other securities issued by such person, corporation, copartnership, company, or association.—People v. Clum, Mich., 182 N, W. 136.

49. Literary--Property Same as Other Personalty.-An author has the same rights in his work as the owner of other personalty, and may sell the same outright, or dispose of it on such conditions or with such restrictions as he might

« 이전계속 »