BANK AND BANKER.

The cashier then endorsed the certificate and sent it through a correspondent
to Bank A., which thereupon paid it, and the money was handed over to the
stranger. Thereafter the real T. D. appeared at Bank A., and on discovery
of the forgery Bank A. paid him the amount and brought suit gainst Bank
B. to recover the payment on the forged endorsement. Held, that Bank A.
had a right to rely on the identification of T. D. by Bank B. and could
recover. State Bank v. Savings Co., 786.

BANKRUPTCY. See TIME, 2.

I. Jurisdiction.

1. A proceeding in bankruptcy from the filing of the petition to the dis-
charge or refusal to discharge the bankrupt is a single case, and is subject to
appeal or writ of error as such, but there may be a large number of cases or
questions arising in the course of it, and these may be the subject of review
by the Circuit Court by writ of error or appeal or petition to review, according
to their nature. Citizens' Bank v. Ober, 36.

2. If the matter is a suit at law or in equity, or a dispute by the assignee
of a creditor's claim allowed, or a claim by a creditor wholly or in part
rejected, then it must be brought before the Circuit Court by writ of error or
appeal. Id.

3. But all other cases or questions arising in the progress of a case in
bankruptcy fall within the supervisory jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, and
must be brought before it by bill or petition to review. Id.

4. The settlement of the status of a creditor's claim as to priority with
respect to other liens is not the allowance or rejection of the claim meant by
sect. 8, by which an appeal is given, and the proper mode of bringing such
a matter before the Circuit Court is by petition to review. Id.

5. An assignee made a sale of real estate of the bankrupt at which certain
creditors purchased. The District Court confirmed the sale against the ex-
ceptions of other creditors, and made an order as to the priority of certain
liens. Held, that this was a proceeding within the supervisory power of the
Circuit Court, and should be brought before it by petition to review. Id.
II. Acts of Bankruptcy.

6. The 35th and 39th sections of the Bankrupt Act are not in conflict with
respect to this question. The latter section enumerates the various acts which
subject a person to involuntary bankruptcy, and that is the main purpose of
the section, and the fact that a preference, given by a debtor to a creditor
within six months next before the filing of the petition against him in con-
travention of the terms of this section, is denounced as an act of bankruptcy;
and that the money so paid may be recovered back by the assignee, is not
inconsistent with the limitation of the right in the 35th section to cases
occurring within six and four months of the commencement of bankruptcy
proceedings. Bean v. Brookmire, 181.

7. The 35th and 39th sections having set up a rule at variance with the
common law and with the statutes of most of the states, by which certain
payments and transfers of property are declared void, very properly limit
and define the circumstances within which this new rule should operate. Id.

III. Effect of Proceedings.

8. An assignment in bankruptcy takes effect as if made at the commence-
ment of the proceedings. Mays v. Manufacturers' Bank, 344.

9. The assignment transfers only the property which the bankrupt owned
at the filing of the petition. Id.

10. The whole world is bound to take notice of the assignment by operation
of law. Id.

11. It is the duty of a court of bankruptcy to see that the property to which
a bankrupt is entitled is secured to him, as much as to see that he surrenders
the balance to his creditors. Re Stevens, 523.

12. Personal property exempt by the laws of the state where the bankrupt
resides and where the petition is filed, will be protected wherever it may be
actually situated. Id.

13. Personal property of a debtor residing in Wisconsin was attached in

BANKRUPT.

Illinois. Pending the attachment the debtor filed a petition in bankruptcy in
Wisconsin. The property was exempt by the laws of Wisconsin. Held:

(1). That the property was exempt under the Bankrupt Act and the attach-
ment dissolved.

(2). The Bankruptcy Court will not consider whether the property was
exempt under the laws of Illinois.

(3). The officer in possession of the property under the attachment writ
cannot retain the property until his fees are paid. His only remedy is by
application to the court to be paid out of funds in the hands of the assignee..
Mays v. Manufacturers' Bank, 344.

IV. Practice.

14. That part of the 14th section of the Bankrupt Act which adopts the
state exemption laws in force in 1864 as the measure of property to be ex-
empted under proceedings in bankruptcy, is uniform in its operation among
the states, and is therefore constitutional. In re Beckerford, 57.

15. By the exemption laws of Missouri, in force in 1864, a homestead
may be set apart to a debtor out of a leasehold in real estate, or where such
leasehold is not susceptible of division he may retain $1000 out of the pro-
ceeds of it. Id.

V. Discharge.

16. Debts due a principal by a factor for goods sold on commission are not
discharged by the discharge in bankruptcy. Lenke v. Booth, 743.
VI. Rights and Duties of Assignee.

17. Money paid by a debtor to his creditor more than four months before
the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy by or against such debtor,
cannot be recovered back from such creditor by the assignee of the bankrupt,
although the creditor knew that such payment was made to him by way of
preference, and that the debtor was insolvent at the time of making such
payment and that the same was made in contemplation of insolvency or
bankruptcy. Bean v. Brookmire, 181.

18. The two clauses of the 35th section of the Bankrupt Law differ in this,
that the first clause is limited to a creditor or a person having a claim against
the bankrupt, or who is under liability for him, and who receives money or
property by way of preference; and the second clause applies to the purchase
of property of the bankrupt by any person who has no claim against him and
is under no liability for him. Id.

19. The word "payment" in the first part of the second clause of this
section is used either inadvertently or in a loose sense with respect to some
of the acts mentioned in this clause, but is intentionally omitted from the list
of transactions which are declared void under this clause of the section. Id.
20. A sale by an assignee under the Bankrupt Act, will not pass the real
estate to the vendee discharged of the dower of the bankrupt's wife. In re
Angier, 190.

21. The assignee in bankruptcy is not a judicial officer, his setting apart
exempt property is not conclusive. Fehley v. Barr, 795.

22. The assignee's setting apart land as exempted, does not divest the lien
of judgment clear of exemption. Id.

BETTING.

Either depositor of a bet on a race may maintain an action against the
stakeholder for the deposit before the race. Cleveland v. Wolf, 403.
BILL OF LADING.

Damage or deficiency in quantities specified, if any, to be deducted from
charges by consignees," in a bill of lading, is not a warranty of safe deli-
very. Price v. Hartshorn, 796.

BILLS AND NOTES. See CONFEDERATE STATES, 17; CORPORATION, 12;
MORTGAGE, 25; PARTNERSHIP, 9; PLEADING, 2; RECEIPT, 2.

1. A promissory note given for the purchase of slaves, after the presi-
dent's proclamation of 1861, is void. Carson v. Hunter, 64.

2. Where a note is given in consideration of the sale of land to be con-

BILLS AND NOTES.

veyed upon payment of the money, the payee cannot recover without tender
of a conveyance. Deitrich v. Franz, 64.

3. The secretary of a corporation is not liable on a promissory note signed
with his own name with "Sec'y." affixed, and bearing the seal of the corpo-
tion. Means v. Swormstedt, 64.

4. In an action on a note since the Code, in New York, the defendant has
a right to prove that the plaintiff is not the real owner. Eaton v. Alger, 70.
5. A payee of a note will not be allowed to get rid of a defence of want
of consideration, by transferring a share of the obligation to another. Saz-
ton v. Dodge, 124.

6. Restoring a note to its original condition by erasing an alteration is
not a fraud on the endorser. Kountz v. Kennedy, 193.

7. There is no rule of law independent of intention, by which an altera-
tion not affecting ultimate liability makes the instrument void. Id.

8. The transfer by one partner to another of the assets of the firm, is a
good consideration for a promissory note. Springer v. Dwyer, 344.

9. Where the endorsee produces the note on trial, it is to be presumed he
is the holder in good faith, and that he received it before maturity. Id.
10. The law does not presume that the endorser is to be compensated in
the case of an accommodation endorsement. Perrine v. Hotchkiss, 345.

11. Under plea of want of consideration to a promissory note, the defend-
ant may offer testimony of any want of consideration, and plaintiff may
prove any. Miller v. Brumbaugh, 403.

12. The endorser of a note will not be liable even to a bona fide holder on
a forged endorsement unless he ratified or sanctioned it prior to the maturity
of the note. Woodruff v. Munroe, 403.

13. The payment after maturity of a note secured by mortgage, by the
owner of the mortgaged premises, extinguishes the note. Appledorn v.
Streeter, 403.

14. Possession of a note by one of two joint endorsees for four years after
its maturity, and until his death, is evidence of his ownership, and of his
right to appropriate it to the payment of a claim by maker against such en-
dorsees. Birkey v. McMakin, 404.

15. That the defendant was induced to purchase by false representations,
is a defence in bar of an action on a note for the purchase-money, though de-
fendant has not surrendered the article purchased. Groff v. Hansel, 408.

16. An offer to pay part in discharge of the whole, is not admissible in
a suit on a note against the maker. Id.

17. An endorsement will not create a liability where none was intended
to exist. Lewis v. Brehme, 470.

18. A promise by an endorser to pay a draft subsequent to its dishonor is
presumptive evidence that it had been presented in due time, and that he had
notice of its being dishonored. Id.

19. A note given for the sale of land, to which the Indian title is not ex-
tinguished, is void. Vickroy v. Pratt, 532.

20. Where no place of payment is named, a note is construed according
to the law of the place where it is made. Stickney v. Jordan, 532.

Id.

21. Compound interest is recoverable in Maine on a note payable there.

22. Interest cannot be claimed on prepayments of a note, payable on time,
without interest. Parker v. Moody, 532.

23. When the drawee of a bill of exchange refuses to pay at maturity,
notice of such refusal must be given to the drawer or he will be released.
Liggett v. Weed, 600.

24. When the acceptance is conditional the drawee is not liable until con-
dition is fulfilled. Id.

25. The maker of a promissory note not governed by the law merchant,
may impeach the note for want of consideration in a suit by the assignee,
though the note is accompanied by a writing stating that it is all right.
Jacqua v. Montgomery, 662.

26. Where a note with surety has been given upon an agreement that the

BILLS AND NOTES.

payee shall deliver to the maker another note, and the payee fails to deliver,
the consideration for the note fails. Heeg v. Weigand, 750.

27. If such note is given as security for the surety on the old note, and he
pays the debt, he may recover against the surety on the new note. Id.

28. A. held the promissory note of the defendant, obtained of him by
fraud, and which the defendant had demanded back immediately on discover-
ing the fraud. The note was payable to A.'s order and on time, and before
due A. endorsed it to the plaintiff in trust in part for certain creditors and
the balance for A.'s wife, the plaintiff having no knowledge of the infirmity
of the note. The creditors accepted the transfer and directed the plaintiff to
bring suit on the note when due. Held, 1. That so far as the trust for A.'s
wife was concerned, the plaintiff took the note as agent of A., and therefore
with its infirmity. 2. That the entire transaction by which the note was
transferred to the plaintiff was out of the regular course of business, and
that the note therefore remained open to the defence of fraud.
Roberts v.

Hall, 760.

29. The wife of A. was living apart from him, but was not divorced. Held
not to affect the case.

ld.

30. The taking of negotiable paper as payment of or security for a pre-
existing debt is not out of the regular course of business. Id.

31. The question whether negotiable paper was taken in the regular course
of business resolves itself into the inquiry whether mercantile paper is ordi-
narily used in the manner in which the paper in question was used, and
whether a business man would ordinarily have received the paper, in the
circumstances in which it was offered, and parted with his property for it. Id.
32. A statute of Mississippi enacted that any promissory note or other
contract for the payment of money executed in that state between March 1st
1862 and May 1st 1865, should be prima facie payable in Confederate notes
unless it appeared otherwise on the face of the contract. On a bill in chan-
cery to foreclose a mortgage given to secure such a note and a decree pro
confesso for want of an answer, there being no proof to show the note to be
payable in other money, the reference to the master should have been to
ascertain the value of Confederate notes. Mezeik v. McGraw, 790.

BOND.

See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 6; SURETY, 5.

1. A bond will not be reformed by striking out portions alleged to be
erroneous, in the absence of evidence showing that it is not in conformity
with a previous agreement. Garner v. Bird et al., Ex'rs., 62.

2. The fact that the obligor employed a lawyer who gave him bad advice
and thereby induced him to sign the bond, furnishes no authority to a court
to alter the contract. Id.

3. Inattention or forgetfulness of the time, place, or person to whom a
bond is to be paid will not excuse the non-payment. Spring v. Fisk, 276.

4. Where a bond is signed by an illiterate person upon misrepresentations
as to its contents it is not his deed, but is void ab initio. In such case it is
not material whether the obligee had knowledge of the misrepresentation or
not. But where the contents are correctly stated, but the obligor is induced
to sign it by misrepresentations of facts, it is his bond, though he may avoid
it for the fraud. Schuylkill Co. v. Copley, 783.

BOUNDARY. See DEED, 1; EJECTMENT, 1; EVIDENCE, 24.

1. A lot of land was described in a grant as "beginning at a stake stand-
ing on the bank or edge of Round Lake, thence," &c. (describing three lines
of the lot), "to a stake standing on the westerly bank or edge of the said
lake, and thence following the several courses of the said bank or edge to the
place of beginning." Held, 1. That the title under the grant extended to
the margin of the lake, and was not limited by a stake standing on the bank.
2. That the grantee was entitled to land formed in front of the lots by the
gradual receding of the waters of the lake. Under a grant of a 'lake,'
reserving to the grantor all mines and minerals, the soil of the lake passes.
Burke v. Niles, 118.

2. A line established under a parol compromise will be supported and is
not affected by the Statute of Frauds. Kellum v. Smith, 533.

BOUNDARY.

3. A line as actually run, takes precedence of one given in a deed. Knowles
v. Toothaker, 601.

4. Calls in a deed are always controlled by lines on the ground. Craft v.
Yeaney, 797.

BRIDGE. See CONTRACT, 2; HIGHWAY, 3.

BROKER.

1. A real estate broker finding a purchaser for the land of his principal is
entitled to his commissions, although the principal vary the price or terms
of the sale. Woods v. Stephens, 193.

2. The compensation for procuring the loan of money being fixed by
statute, cannot be enlarged in a particular case by any testimony. Perrine v.
Hotchkiss, 345.

3. One employed to sell real estate and setting on foot negotiations result-
ing in a sale, cannot be deprived of compensation by discharge previous to
the consummation. Gillet v. Corum, 402.

4. A broker buying stock for another and being ready at any time to deli-
ver it, may recover for the money advanced, though there might have been
times when no stock was in his name. Wynkoop v. Seal, 404.

5. Shares of stock are the same and a transfer made by another of the
stock would have been a compliance with the broker's contract.
Id.

6. The defendant in the month of March put into the hands of the plaintiff,
a real estate broker, for sale, a house in a certain city street, at the price of
$6500; the plaintiff to receive a commission of 1 per cent. if he sold the
house, the defendant to have the right to sell it himself without being liable
to a commission, and the plaintiff not to advertise. The plaintiff entered the
house on his books, and in December and January following advertised houses
for sale on that street. G., who lived on the street and was desirous of find-
ing a house near by for a friend, saw the advertisement and went to the plain-
tiff's office and learned that the defendant's house was for sale. He informed
his friend, and the latter went to the defendant and negotiated with him for
it and finally purchased it. The purchaser did not see the plaintiff nor go to
his office, and G.'s action in the matter was wholly voluntary: Held, that the
plaintiff was entitled to his commission. Lincoln v. McClatchie, 634.

7. A sale made by the defendant, upon which the plaintiff was to have no
commission, held to mean a sale to a purchaser found by the defendant
wholly without the plaintiff's procurement. Id.

8. The plaintiff, by some misunderstanding, had altered the entry of the
price on his books from $6500 to $6000, and gave the latter price to G. when
he inquired. The defendant's price remained $6500, and he sold the house
for $6400: Held, that the plaintiff was still entitled to his commission. Id.

CANAL. See CORPORATION, 4.

CAPTURE. See WAR, 1.

CASES APPROVED, OVERRULED, &c.

2'.

3 C. E. Green 454, commented on. Cowart v. Perrine, 202.
Post v. Avery, 5 W. & S. 509, commented on. Forrester v. Torrence, 352.
Peoples v. Knowles, 15 Mich. 408, approved. Fisher v. People, 480.
Millingar v. Sorg, 5 P. F. Smith 215, commented on.

535.

Lawrence v. Luhr,

Martin v. Highway Commissioners, 4 Mich. 557, approved.
Leoni v. Taylor, 537.

Lindauer v. Fourth National Bank, 55 Barb. 75, approved.
National Bank, 600.

Dickerson v. Wason, 54 Barb. 230, commented on.
Bank, 600.

Landon v. Litchfield, 11 Conn. 251, overruled.
Atwater v. Woodbridge, 6 Conn. 223, overruled.
Osborne v. Humphrey, 7 Conn. 335, overruled.

Township of

Dod v. Fourth

Dod v. Fourth National

Lord v. Litchfield, 493.

Lord v. Litchfield, 493.
Lord v. Litchfield, 493.