Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Decisions announced without Opinions.

No. 478. CHAPPELL v. CHAPPELL. Error to the Court of
Appeals of the State of Maryland. Submitted February 1,
1897. Decided February 15, 1897. Per Curiam. Dismissed
for the want of jurisdiction. Mr. Samuel Maddox and Mr.
David Stewart in support of motions to dismiss or affirm.
Mr. Thomas C. Chappell opposing.

Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari.

No. 676. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. CARNEGIE STEEL
Co. Fourth Circuit. Granted January 11, 1897. Mr. Henry
Crawford and Mr. Willis B. Smith for petitioner. Mr. Nicholas
P. Bond, Mr. P. C. Knox and Mr. David Willcox opposing.

No. 684. RELIANCE MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY V. NEW
YORK AND CUBA Mail STEAMSHIP COMPANY. Second Circuit.
Denied January 18, 1897. Mr. William W. MacFarland for
petitioner. Mr. Harrington Putnam opposing.

No. 204. CAPITAL BANK OF ST. PAUL V. SCHOOL DISTRICT
No. 26, BARNES County, North Dakota. Eighth Circuit.
Denied January 25, 1897. Mr. William M. Jones for peti-
tioner. Mr. Samuel L. Glaspell and Mr. William Small
opposing

No. 683. CAMPBELL V. RICHARDSON. Third Circuit. Denied
February 1, 1897. Mr. Frederick P. Fish, Mr. W. C. Straro-
bridge and Mr. John G. Johnson for petitioners. Mr. Allen
Webster and Mr. William L. Pierce opposing.

No. 694. SAFETY INSULATED WIRE AND CABLE Co. v. MAYOR
AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE. Fourth Circuit. Denied
February 1, 1897. Mr. William Pinkney Whyte for petitioner.
42 U. S. App. 64.

Decisions announced without Opinions.

No. 701. UNITED STATES V. STEAMER “THREE FRIENDS."
Fifth Circuit. Granted February 1, 1897. Mr. Attorney Gen-
eral and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Whitney for petitioner.
Mr. W. Ilullett Phillips opposing. (See 166 U. S. 1.)

No. 682. STANDARD ELEVATOR Co. v. NATIONAL Co. Seventh
Circuit. Granted February 15, 1897. Mr. Frank T. Brown
for petitioners. Mr. James H. Raymond opposing.

No. 715. CLARKE v. STEAMSHIP “ ELFRIDA."

“ ELFRIDA." Fifth Circuit.
Granted March 1, 1897. Mr. D. W. Baker for petitioners.
Mi'. J. Parker Kirlin opposing.

VOL. CLxv-46

u

INDEX.

ABATEMENT.
See Public LAND, 1.

ADMIRALTY.
One furnishing supplies or making repairs on the order simply of a person

acquiring the control and possession of a vessel under a charter party
requiring him to provide and pay for all the coals, etc., cannot acquire
a maritime lien if the circumstances attending the transaction put him
on inquiry as to the existence and terms of such charter party, and he
fails to make the inquiry, and chooses to act on a mere belief that the
vessel will be liable for his claim. The Valencia, 264.

See ConstitUTIONAL LAW, 21,

22.

BANK.
1. As between a check holder and the bank upon which such check is

drawn, it is settled that, unless the check be accepted by the bank, an
action cannot be maintained by the holder against the bank. Fourth

Street Bank v. Yardley, 6:31.
2. It is also settled that a check, drawn in the ordinary form, does not, as

between the maker and payee, constitute an equitable assignment pro
tanto of an indebtedness owing by the bank upon which the check has
been drawn, and that the mere giving and receipt of the check does not
entitle the holder to priority over general creditors in a fund received
from such bank by an assignee under a general assignment made by

the debtor for the benefit of his creditors. 16.
3. That the owner of a chose in action or of property in the custody of

another may assign a part of such rights, and that an assignment of
this nature, if made, will be enforced in equity, is also settled doctrine

of this court. Ib.
4. The Keystone Bank, through its president, solicited the Fourth Street

Bank to give to the former $25,000 of gold certificates, for which the
Keystone Bank was to give its check against its reserve account in the
Tradesmen’s National Bank of New York City. At the same time
that this request was made the president of the Keystone Bank made
the further statement that his bank owed a balance at the clearing-
house which it could not meet " because its funds were in the city of

723

New York,” and exhibited a memorandum showing the amount to its
credit with the Tradesmen's Bank to be in the neighborhood of
$27,000. In reliance upon such representations and the statements
made supported by the memorandum exhibited, the Fourth Street
Bank delivered to the Keystone Bank the certificates requested, and
there was delivered a check for $25,000 upon the Tradesmen's National
Bank of New York. The draft in question was at once forwarded to
the city of New York, and was presented for payment at the Trades-
men's Bank on the following morning, when payment was refused.
At the time of presentment the Tradesmeu's Bank had to the credit
of the Keystone Bank $19,725.62 in cash and collection items amount-
ing to $7181.70, in all $26,907.32. Of this amount $18,056.21 had
been remitted by the Keystone Bank on the day previous. Held,
(1) That, it being established that it was the intention and agree-
ment of the parties to the transaction that the check drawn generally
should be paid out of a particular fund, such check, as between the
parties, is to be treated as though an order for payment out of the
specific, designated fund; (2) That as the Fourth Street Bank con-
tracted and parted with its money on the faith of the representations
of the Keystone Bank that there was to its credit, in the Tradesmen's
Bank, a specific sum, and the fund which came into the hands of its
voluntary assignee was the fund as to which the representations were
made, the Keystone Bank and its assignee were in equity estopped
froin asserting, to the prejudice of the Fourth Street Bank, that the
character and condition of the fund was otherwise than it was repre-
sented to be. Ib.

BANK CHEQUE.

See Bank.

BOUNDARY LINE.
The report of the commissioners appointed February 3, 1896, 160 U. S. 638,

to find and re-mark the boundary line between the States of Missouri
and Iowa, is confirmed; and it is ordered that that boundary line be
as delineated and set forth in said report. Missouri v. Iowa, 118.

CASES AFFIRMED.
Adams Erp. Co. v. Ohio, 165 U. S. 194, followed and held to govern this

case.

Adams Erpress Co. v. Indiana, 255.
District of Columbia v. Johnson, 165 U. S. 330, approved and followed.
District of Columbia v. Hall, 340; Same v. Dickson, 341.

See ConstitUTIONAL LAW, 9, 13, 27;

CRIMINAL LAW, 15, 16.

CASES DISTINGUISHED.
See ConstituTIONAL LAW, 27;

PUBLIC LAND, 12.

« ПретходнаНастави »