(flnrupll Slatu ^rlyonl Blibrarg
Cornell University Library
KF 705.S64
A treatise on the law of personal proper
3 1924 018 802 466
Cornell University
Library
The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924018802466
A TREATISE
OK THE
LAW OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
BY
HOEAOE E. SMITH, LL. D.,
Late Dean of the Albany Law School.
CHICAGO:
T. H. FLOOD & COMPANY,
Law Book Publishebs.
1893.
i56'^^^^
Entered according to Act of Congrean, In the year 1893,
By HORACE E. SMITH,
111 the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington.
SlBBBOTTPED ANP PbINIBD
BY
DARIUS D. THORP,
Lansikg, Mjoh.
PBEFACE.
In tHe early history of our law under the English
feudal system, personal property was regarded as of
small consequence in comparison with real estate. The
latter was the measure of wealth, and the gauge of social
and political rank. It -is quite diiferent at present withi
the relative importance of the two kinds of property,
especially in the United States. The great change in
our country is the result of various causes ; among which
may be mentioned as prominent, the form and genius of
our government, the character of our institutions, and
the allodial system of land ownership. The last half
century has witnessed an increase in new and varied
industries, an enlargement and extension of commerce
and manufactures, little less than marvelous, and marked
changes in sociological conditions, all contributing to the
volume and great importance of the law of personal
property. The cultivation of this department of juris-
prudence has not been equal to its demands, as measured
by the importance of the subject, and its varied applica-
tion to human relations and affairs. When this work
was undertaken, the only American publication treating
exclusively upon the subject of Personal Property, known
to the author, was the learned and elaborate work of
Mr. Schouler, in two volumes ; while on most branches
IV PEEFACE.
of the law there were numerous text-books at command
of the profession. A practice of many years in the pro-
fession, supplemented by ten years' experience with
students at the Albany Law School, impressed the writer
with the conviction that a treatise on this subject, differ-
ing somewhat in character and aim from any then before
the public, might be a useful addition to our legal litera-
ture. Under this conviction, and with the view of meet-
ing what seemed to be a want, the following pages were
prepared. The plan and aim of the work is, to bring
the leading and essential principles of the law of personal
property within a narrow compass, and in such a manner
as to serve the following purposes : First, to furnish the
student with the means of acquiring an adequate and
discriminating knowledge of the subject, without un-
necessary and confusing discussion ; secondly, the prac-
titioner with a ready and reliable solution of questions
arising in the exigencies of his professional business,
when time is wanting for extended research ; and, third,
to meet the wants of those outside the legal profession,
who may desire to obtain a knowledge of the general
principles of the subject, as a qualification for business,
or an essential to a liberal education, but are unable to
devote much time to the study. In carrying out his
plan, the writer has endeavored to state the rule or prin-
ciple of law on points in question, as settled by the
weight of authority, in a manner as clear and succinct as
practicable, without entering at large upon philosophical
discussion, or marshaling in the text an array of conflict-
ing cases. Yet, sufficient references to decided cases.
PEEFAOB. - V
and standard text-books, have been furnished to facihtate
an exhaustive examination of questions when necessary
or desirable. Special care has been taken, however, to
formulate definitions, and state principles, with such
perspicuity and reliable accuracy as to render extended
research unnecessary.
The author might have constructed a more elaborate
and imposing work with much less cost of time, thought,
and labor ; but the product, he believes, would have been
less intrinsically valuable for the purpose intended. If
he has succeeded to a reasonable extent in reaHzing his
purpose, the reader will find in one small volume aU the
leading and essential principles of this department of law,
so systematized and presented as to be easily available
for study or use. The author has not the vanity to think
that his work is free from imperfections ; but he hopes
that it may prove useful to the classes for which it is
designed, and trusts that it wiU be received with con-
Biderate kindness by a liberal profession.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTEE I.
ENTRODUCTORT ; DEFINITION AND USES OF THE WORD
PROPERTY : GENERAL CLASSIFICATIONS.
PAGE.
Section 1. Definition of the term, " property " 1
2. Uses of the term 2
3. Real, and Personal, property . 2,3
4. Absolute, and qualified, property 3
6. Limitations of absolute ownership 3-5
CHAPTEE II.
CHARACTERISTICS OP PERSONAL PROPERTY.
Section 6. Mobility 6
7. Change from personal to real, and vice versa 6, 7
8. 'Duration of the time of enjoyment 7, 8
CHAPTEE III.
IRREGULAR SPECIES OF PROPERTY.
I. Fixtures.
Section 9. What are fixtures 9,10
10. Rules for guidance 10, 11
11. Between what parties 12
13. Time of removal. 12, 13
II. Emblements.
13. What are emblements 13,14
14. What products the tenant may remove 14
15. Who, and when, entitled to emblements. 15-17
16. Incidents 17
Vm TABLE OF CONTENTS.
III. Heir-looms. page.
Section 17. Character, and law of, defined - 18, 19
rV. Manure.
18. When real, and when personal, property 20,21
V. Church Furniture.
19. Law of this species of property 31, 23
VI. Mortuary Property.
20. Kinds, legal rules, and burial rights 22-24
CHAPTEE lY.
NOMENCLATURE, AND SUBORDINATE DIVISIONS OF PER-
SONAL PROPERTY.
Section 21. Chattels, real, and personal 25, 26
22. CT OSes in possession ; c?iofies in action 26,27
23. Estate, real, and personal _ 28,29
24. Goods, wares, merchandise, effects, credits 29, 30
25. Personal property in expectancy 31
CHAPTEE V.
PERSONAL PROPERTY, HOW HELD, OR OWNED.
Section 26. Joint owners 32-34
27. Ownership in common 85-37
28. Part-owners of ships 1 37,38
29. Partners 38-41
30. Corporations 42-46
31. Joint stock companies.. 46-49
CHAPTEE YI.
MODES OF ACQUIRING TITLE TO PERSONAL PROPERTY.
Section 32. Modes of acquiring title classified.
First. By original acquisition, embracing:
1. Occupancy, including:
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 13
(a) Goods taken by capture in war;
(b) Goods casually lost by the owner, and
unreclaimed, or designedly abandoned;
(c) Waifs; and
(d) Reclamation of animals /erce natures.
2. Accession, including:
(a) Fruits of the earth produced naturally
or by human industry;
(b) The increase of animals;
(c) Materials of one person united to the
materials of another; and
(d) Confusion of goods.
Second. Transfer by act of law, embracing:
1. Forfeiture;
2. Succession;
3. Judgment;
4. Intestacy;
5. Insolvency; and
6 Marriage.
Third. Transfer by act of the parties, including:
1. Gifts inter vivos;
, 2. Gifts causa mortis;
3. Title by will pr testament;
4. Sales;
5 Indorsements;
6. Assignments; and
7. Bailments.
CHAPTER VII.
TITLE BY ORIGINAL ACQUISITION.
PAGE.
Bection 33. Occupancy, the first known method of acquiring ^
title 52-55
34. Goods taken by capture in war 55-58
35. Goods lost or abandoned 58-61
36. Waifs 61,63
37. Reclamation of animals /ercE Tiafwrce 60-64
88. Title by accession 65
39. Fruits of the earth. 66
40. Increase of aniqaals. 66,67
X TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE.
Section 41. Materials of one person united to the materials
of another.. 67-70
43. Products of intellectual labor 70, 71
43. Patents for inventions and designs 71-83
44. Essentials of a patentable invention, etc 73-77
45. Mode of obtaining, and conditions, of a valid
patent 77-80
46. Other points in the law of patents 80-83
47. Copyright 83-84
48. How to secure the statutory right. 84-87
49. Essentials to copyright 87-91
50. Remedies for infringement 91
51. Letters from one correspondent to another 93-94
63. Lectures 94-96
53. Trade-marks 1 96-104
54. A common law right 97, £8
55. What may constitute a trade-mark 98
56. By whom acquired 99,100
67. Freedom from fraud 100
58. How acquired 101, 103
59. Infringement ...:.. 103,103
60. Remedies for infringement 103, 104
CHAPTEK YIII.
THE SECOND GENERAL MODE OF ACQUIRING TITLE TO
PERSONAL PROPERTY— TRANSFER BY ACT OF LAW.
Section 61. Special modes included in this division 105
I, Forfeiture.
63. Definition, and examples L. 105
63. England, and United States 106
64. When title passes 107
65. Forfeiture odious 107
II. Succession,
66. Definition, and kinds 107, 108
67. Common law succession 108, 109
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XI
III. Judgment. PAGE. -
BECT10N68. Definition IIO
69. Judgments which transfer title 110-112
rv. Intestacy,
70. Definition, history, and incidents 113-11&
V. Insolvency.
71. Meaning of the terms "insolvency" and "bank-
ruptcy' - 117
72. Distinction between bankrupt, and insolvent,
laws 117, 118
73. General purposes, and effect, of insolvent laws. 118, 119
74. United States bankrupt, and insolvent, laws 119-121
VI. Marriage.
75. Transfer of chattels by marriage -. 121, 122
76. As to the wife's choses in action 1S2, 123
77. No unjust discrimination against the wife 123, 124
CHAPTEK IX.
THE THIRD GENERAL MODE OF ACQUIRING TITLE TO
PERSONAL PROPERTY— TRANSFER BY
ACT OF THE PARTIES.
I. Gifts inter vivos.
Section 78. Definition, and subjects of these gifts 125, 126
79. Delivery essential -. 126, 127
80. VaUdityof gifts - 127, 128
81. Gifts on condition, with reservation, or a trust.. 128
82. Gifts between parent and child 128. 129
83. Gifts between husband and wife 129-133
84. Revocation of gifts 129-133
II. Cfifts causa mortis.
85. Definition 130, 131
86. Essentials to this gift 131, 132
87. Title of donee, delivery, and effect 132, 133
Xll TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE.
Section 88. Eevooation .- 133
89. Not favored in law 134
III. Title by Will or Testament.
90. "Why assigned to this division 134-136
91. Last will and testament defined 136
93. Testamentary capacity — 186-139
93. Written, and unwritten, wills 139
94. Revocation. '.- 140,141
95. "When the will takes effect 141, 143
IV. Sales.
96. Sale defined 143,143
97. Elements of a valid sale _ 144
98. Parties competent to contract 144
99. Mutual assent 144-147
100. The subject of the sale 147, 148
101. A price in money, paid or promised 148. 149
102. The Statute of Frauds 149-164
103. Contract in respect of passing title 164-169
104. Mistake ; failure, and illegality, of consideration. 169-173
105. Fraudulent sales 172-179
106. Illegal contracts of sale 179, 180
107. Conditions, and conditional sales .180, 181
108. "Warranty 182-185
109. Delivery in performance of the contract 185-189
110. The vendor's lien 189
111. Stoppage in transitu..- 190-193
113. Payment and tender 193,194
113. Remedies of the vendor 300-304
114. Remedies of the vendee 204r-208
V. Indorsement.
115. Title by, and kinds 308, 209
VI. Assignment.
116. Acquisition of title by „ 210
"VII. Bailment.
117. Special property in bailee 210, 311
TABLE OF CONTENTS, XIU
CHAPTEE X.
LIMITATIONS.
PAGE.
Section 118. History and purpose 212-314
119. "When the limitation begins 214, 315
130. New promise 215-330
CHAPTEE XI.
INSURANCE.
Section 131. Definition, and terms employed 230, 231
132. Nature, and form, of the contract 221-334
123. Classes of policies 224^326
124. Consummation of the contract 226-328
135. Subject-matter of the contract 338, 339
136. Insurable interest 239-331
137. Warranties, and representations 231-334
138. Special provisions of the contract 334^337
129. Mutual insurance 337-339
CHAPTEE XII.
LEGACIES, AND DISTEIBUTIVE SHAEES.
I. Legacies.
Section 130. Definition, and principal classes 240-343
131. Minor divisions, rules and incidents 242-246
133. Abatement, ademption, payment and satisfac-
tion : 246-251
II. Distributive Shares.
133. Defined and explained 251, 253
CHAPTEE XIII.
STOCK, AND STOCKHOLDEES.
Section 134. Stock, and shares of stock, defined 353-355
135. Methods of acquiring title to stock 355-357
136. Liability of stockholders 257-268
137. The assets on dissolution 268-271
XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS.
•
CHAPTEE XIV.
MISCELLANEOUS SPECIES OF PERSONAL PROPERTY NOT
HEREINBEFORE SPECIFICALLY TREATED.
I. Money. page.
Section 138. What it is 273-
139. Constitutional money. 272-275
140. Subject tolevy under execution 275,376
II. Debts.
141. Definition, and classification 376-284
143. Debt, how discharged 384-391
III. Mortgages.
143. Definition, and essential elements 291, 392
144. Formal requisites 393-394
145. Subjects of a chattel mortgage 394-396
146. Possession of the mortgaged property. 396-398
147. Mortgage distinguished from pledge 398, 399
148 Equity relief of mortgagor 399-300
149. Conditional sales with the right to repurchase,
distinguished 300, 301
150. Foreclosure of the equity of redemption 301-303
rV. Bottomry, and respondentia, bonds.
151. Defined and explained 303, 304
153. Hypothecation by the master, or the owner 304^306
153. Miscellaneous rules 306-808-
V Rent.
154. Definition and properties 308, 309
155. The kinds of rent. 309, 310
156. Remedy by distress for rent in arrear 310-316
157. Remedies by action at law, and a suit in equity 316-320
158. Obligation to pay rent; eviction a defense 820-322
159. Apportionment of rent 323, 823
(JHAPTEE XV
DEVOLUTION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY ON DEATH OF
OWNER.
Section 160. General rules a^i, 335.
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE.
Abbottv. American Hard Rubber Co., 33 Barb., 578 270
4Blatchf.,489 270
Abbott V. Hamden Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 30 Me. , 414 230
Abbott V. Howard Hayes (Irish), 381... 233
Abbott V. Shepard... i 48 N. H., 14 146
Abernethy V. Ch. of the Puritans 3Daly, 1 21
Acebal v. Levy lOBing.,376 156, 162
Acraman V. Morris 8 C. B., 449 164
Adams v. Broughton Strange, 1078... Ill
Adams v. Linsdell ^ 1 B. & Aid., 681 146
Adams V. McMillan 7 Post., 73 168
Adams v. Mirick 5 Serg. & R., 32 201
Adams V. Story 1 Paine C. C, 79 118
Adams Exp. Co. v. Egbert. ..36 Pa. St., 360 206
Adlerv. Milwaukee, etc., Co 13 Wis., 57 261
Agarv. Lisle Hob., 187 59
Agnew V. Johnson 17 Pa. St.', 373 36
Alabama & Fla R. R. Co. v. Rowley..9Fla., 508 259
Alcockv. Hopkins ..6 Cash., 484 195
Alden v. Dewey 1 Story, 336 79
Aldridgev. Johnson 7 E. & B., 885 168
26 L. J. B., 296 168
Alexander v. Gardner 1 Bing., N. C, 671.. 169
Alexander v. Whipple -45 N. H., 502 218
Allan V, Carpenter 15 Mich., 88 16
Allan v.Eldred...- 50 Wis.. 136 195
AUard v. Greasert. 61 N. Y., 1 155
Allen V. Bennett - 3 Gaunt., 169 162
AUenv. Blunt 2 Woodb. & M., 131. 74
Allen V. Cowan 23N. Y,,503 126
Allen V. Franklin Ins. Co - 9 How. Pr. Rep. , 501 230
XVI TABLE OF OASES.
PAGB.
Allen V. Hunter 6 McLean, 303 75
Allen V. Jarvis 20 Conn., 38 151
Allen V. Montgomery R. E. Co 11 Ala., 437, 450 261, 365
AUen V. Webster 15 "Wend., 284 317
AUerv.Aller 11 Vroom., 446 287
Allertonv. Lacey 10 Bosw., 362 137
Allingham v. O'Mahoney 1 Pugsl. ,336 186
AUis V. Read 45 N. Y, 142, 149.... 145
Alsop Y. Com. Ins. Co 1 Sumner, 451 234
Am. Home Ins. Co. v. Patterson 28 Ind., 17 237
Am. Solid Leather Button Co. v.
Anthony Crowell & Co 3 New Eng. Rep., 630 97, 99
Amesbury v. Bowditch Mut. Fire Ins.
Co 6 Gray, 596 235
Amoskeag Manuf . Co. v. Spear. .3 Sandf. Super. Ct,. 599. 99
Amoskeag Manuf. Co. v. Trainer 101 U. S. , 51 99
Anderson V. Baker 1 Ga., 595 126
Anderson V. Baumgartner 37 Mo., 80 800
Anderson v. Fitzgerald 24 Eng. L. & Eq. , 1_. 232
Anderson V. Fitzgerald 4 H. of L. Cas,, 484.. 232
Anderson V. Greene .7 J. J. Marsh., 448.. 137
Anderson V. Harold 10 Ohio, 399 162
Anderson V. Parsons .Greenl.,486 246
Anderson, Receiver, v. Philadelphia
Warehouse Co... Ill U. S., 479 267
Anderson V. Schulze 64 Wis., 460 34
Appeal of Rowley 9 Atl. Rep., 329 257
Archer v. Hudson 7 Beav., 551 139
Archer V. Zeb 5 Hill, 305... 153, 159
Arey V. Stephenson. 11 Ired. L., 86. 218
Argus Co. V. Mayor, etc., of Albany ..55 N. Y., 495 163
Armory V. Delamirie Str. Rep., 556 59
Armory V. Flyn 10 Johns., 102 64
Armstead V. Ward 2 Pat. &H.,504 194
Arnold V. Delano 4 Cush., 33, 38 189, 191
Arnold V. Delano 7 Cush., 33 201
Arnold V. Suffolk Bank .27 Barb., 424 ,. 205
Ash V. Ash 9 Ohio St., 383 141
Ashburner V. McGuire.. JBr. C. C, 108 248
Ashcroft V. Butterworth ..136 Mass., 511 145
TABLE OF CASES. XVU
PAGE.
AspinwaU V. Sacohi 57N. Y.,831 267
Aspinwall v. The King's Proctor Curt. Boo., 246 115
Astley V. Emery....... .4M. &. G., 262 156
Atherfon V. Tilton.'. .44 N. H., 452 39
Atkins V. Colby 20 N. H., 154 181
Atkins V. Saxton 77 N. Y., 195 41
Atkinson V. Alien 12Vt.,619 2 1
Atkinson V. BeU 8 B. & C, 277 168
Atlantic MiUing Co. v. Robinson 20 Fed. Eep.,-217...9T, 100, 102
Attenberghv. People .Car. &P., 212 314
Attorney General V. Jblinstone ..Amb., 577 243
Atwater v. Hough 39 Conn., 509, 516... 150, 153
Atwoodv. Clark 2 Me., 249 188
Atwood V. Lucas :. 53 Me., 508 201
Atwood V. Small 6 Clark & F., 443.... 175
Autman's Appeal 93 Pa. St., 505 267
Ayerv. Bartlett ..9 Pick.. 156 166, 167
Ayersv. Bane .39 Iowa, 518 199
B.
Babb V. Read 5 Rawle, 157 48
Babcock V. BonneU 80 N Y., 244, 249, 250, 251 191
Babcockv. Booth.. 3 Hill, 181 116
Babcock V. Gill.. 10 Johns., 387 70
Babcockv. Hawkins 28 Vt., 561. 285
Babcockv. Wyman .19 How., 339 294
Bacon V. Robertson 18 How. (U. S.), 480. 269
Bacon V. Eccles .43 Wis., 327 156
Backhouse v. Harrison 5 B. & Ad., 1098 60
Badrickv. Stevens ..2 Br. C. C, 431 248
Bagwell V. Dry..^ ...1 P. Wms., 700 246
Bagwell V. Dry 2 P. Wms., 400 246
Bailey V. Clark ..91 Wall., 284 253
Bailey V. Day 26 Me., 88 286
Bailey V. Hollister 26 N. Y., 112 367
Bailey v. Smith .43 N. H., 141 _ 168
Bailey V. Wright ...SMcCord, 484 312
Baird'sCase - L. E. 5 Ch.. 725 267
Baker V.Holt .56 Wis., 100 145
B
XVIU TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE.
Baker V. Kenworthy 41 N. Y., 215 276
Baker v. Lever 67 N. Y., 304...: 289
Baker V. Wheeler 8 Wend., 505, 508-.. 70
Baley V. Homan 3 Bing. (N. C), 631- 285
Baltimore, etc., Turnpike Co. v.
Barnes 6 Harris & J. (Md.),57 256
Baltimore Fire ins. Co. v. Lovey 20 Md. , 20 223
Balto, etc., Co. v. Sewell 36 Md., 338 _ 205
Balme V. Warnbaugh 16 Minn., 116 200
Baldy V. Parker SB. & C, 37 155
Baldwin V. Williams 3 Met., 367 153
Ball V. Chadwick 46 lU., 31 210
Ball v., Gilbert 13 Met., 395, 399,... 325
Ballard v. Noaks 3 Pike, 45 285
Ballentine v. Robinson 46 Pa. St., 177 303
Banet V. Alton, etc., R. R. Co 13 111., 504 358
Bank V. Bangs 102 Mass., 291,195... 168
Bank of Attica V, Mgfs. &Trs. Bank-.20 N. Y., 501... 257
Bank of Columbia v. Patterson 7 Cranch, 399 . 44
Bank of Commonwealth v. Van Vleck.49 Barb. ,503 375
Bank of Ohio VaUey v. Lockwood 13 W. Va., 426 195
Bank of Rochester V. Jones 4N. Y.,497 166,39*
Bank of St. Marys v. St. John 35 Ala. ,566 354
Bank of United States v. Dormally...8 Pet., 361, 371 284
Bank of U. S. v. Dandridge 12 Wheat., 68 44
Bankof Uticav. Ballou .49 N. Y., 155 318
Banksv. Thornton 11 Hare, 176 343
Banorgee V. Hovey ..5 Mass., 11 284
Bantonv Shorey 77M:e.,48 153
Baptist Church v. Brooklyn Ins. Co. .19 N. Y., 305 224
Baptist Ch.v. Bigelow 16 Wend., 38 21
Barfield v. Cole .4 Sneed, 465 393
Barfield v. Nichrfson 3 Sim. & St., 1 89^
Barkerv. Dinsmore ..73 Pa. St., 437 60
Barnesv. Underwood '. 47 N. Y., 351 123
Barsow V. Paxton 5 Johns., 258 399
Bartels V. Harris .4 Me., 146 393
Bartelv. Lope 6 0reg.,331 294
Barton's Case .4DeGex& J., 46... 360'
Barnard V. Bartholomew 23 Pick., 391... 317
TABLE OF OASES. XIX
PAGE.
Barnard V. Graves 16 Pick., 41 196
Barnard V. KeUogg 10 Wall., 383 184
Barnett V. Terry „43 Ga., 283 201
Bartlettv. Blanchard 13 Gray, 439.... 206
Bartlett V. Crittenden 5 McLean, 33 95
Bartlett v. Crittenden 4 McLean, 300 95
Bartlett V. Vinor : Garth., 251 179
Bartholomew V. Sawyer 1 Fish., 516 76
Barr v. Ayers.. ..3 Watts & S., 299 186
Barron V. Baltimore 7 Pet., 343 4
Barrett V. Crane 16 Vt.,346 279
Barrett V. Goddard. 3 Mason, 107- 159
Barrett V. HaU 1 Mason, 447 81
Barrettv. Pritchard, 3Pick.,513 167
Barrow V. Coles - 3 Camp., 93 165
Barry v. Merchants' Ex. Co 1 Sandf . Ch. , 280, 305 44, 253
Barwi'ck V. Foster ...:...Cro. Jac, 227 323
Bassett V. Bassett ION H., 64 j 294
Bassettv. Camp 54 Vt., 333 158
Bates V. Coster .-lHun.,400 151
Bates V. NeUis 5 Hill, 651 812
Bates V. New York Ins. Co. 3 Johns. Cas. , 238 _ . . 255
Bates v.Soarrell ^ 10 Mass., 332 21
Bautleton V. Smith 3 Binn., 146 813
Bayard v. Farmers, etc , Bank 52 Pa. St. , 233 46
Baxter V. Penniman 8 Mass., 134 218
Beach V. Owen. 5 T. R., 409 159
BeattieV. Abercrombie 18 Ala., 9 113
Bearv. Hamish. 8 Brewst., 116 305
Bearce v. Banker 115 Mass., 139 60
Bearingerv. O'Hare 26 Iowa, 259 213
Bean v. Smallwood. .3 Story, 408 74
Beauman t. James 3 Ch., 508 163
Beaumontv. Beevegerie 5 C. B., 301 157
Beaumont V. Crane... .14 Mass., 400 35
Beckwithv. Talbot 95 p. S., 389 163
Bedford V. Hunt 1 Mason, 301, 303... 75
Beecher V. Buckingham 18 Conn., 110 113
Beecher v. Dillsbury, etc., R. R. Co... 76 Pa. St., 306 356
Beecher V. MayaU 10 Gray, 376 289
XX TABLE OF OASES.
PAGE.
Beemanv. Lawton 37 Me., 543 _ 293
Behner V. Dale. 35 Ind., 433 204
Behn V. Bumess 3 Best & Smith, 751. 184
Bell V. Daniels 1 Fish,, 372 77
Bellv. Lamprey- 57 N. H., 168.. 214
Bellv. Locke 8 Paige, 275 104
Bellv. Morrison 1 Peters, 362 216
Bellv. Moss 5 Wheat., 189 191
BeU V. OfiEutt. -10 Bush, 632, 639.... 226, 203
Bell V. Potter 6 HiU, 497 314
Bellv. Reynolds 78 Ala., 511 206
Bellv. Shilley 33 Barb., 610... 239
BeUv. Shrieve _14ni., 463.. 297
Belmont v. Erie R'way Co l53 Barb., 635 44
Bellows V. Wells 36 Vt., 599 165
Belt V. Marriott , .9 Gill., 331 157
Bement v. Smith 15 Wend., 493 .. 203
Benjamin V. Stremple '. 13111., 466.. 211 .
Bennett V. Hull 10 Johns., 364 1.50
Bennettv. Nye ..4 Greene (la.), 410 151
Bennett V. Smith 15 Wend., 493 ... 168
Benson V. Benson IP. Wms., 130, 131_ 288
Bentallv. Burn 3B. &C.,433 158
Bent V. Hart 10 Mo. App., 148, 146 253
Benton V. Havckes .4B. & Aid., 540, 550 7I
Berkly V. Hardy.... 6 Barn. & 0,, 355 318
Bernecker V. Miller 40 Mo., 473 36
Berry V. Berry 31 Iowa, 415 ' 128
Berry V. Usher 11 Ves., 87 251
Betterton v. Roope 3 Lee (Tenn.), 230 . .. 195
Betts et al. v. Lee 5 Johns., 348 70
Betts V.Lee. .5 Johns., 338 69
Beverage v. New York El. R. R. Co...ll3 N. Y., 1, 27 255
Biddleson v. Whytel 3 Burrows, 1545-1 548 110
Bigelow V. Baldwin 1 Gray, 345. 285
Bill V. Bament .9 M. & W., 36 161
Billings V. Robinson... 94 N. Y.,415... 265
Bimelar v. Dawson 5 111., 536 281
Bird V. Munroe 1...66 Me., 347 161
Bishop V. Bishop UN. Y., 123 13
TABLE OF CASES. XXI
PAGE.
Bishop V. Small 63 Me., 13 174
Black V. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co.--.23 N. J. Eq., 130, 415 371
34N. J. Eq., 455 ... 371
Black V. Thornton 31 Ga., 641 137
Black V. Zacharie J 3 How., 483.: 194
Blaine v. Ship Charles Carter 4 Cranch, 338 306
4Cranoh, 328 307
Blair V. Claxton 18 N. Y., 529 321
Blaisdell V. Souther 6 Gray, 153 143
Blake v. Portsmouth, etc. , E. E. Co. ..39 N. H. , 435 269
, BJakemore V. Tabor 32Ind.,446 303
Blanch V. Bradford. 38 Pa. St., 344 315
Blanchard V. Noyes 3 N. H., 518 386
Blanchard V. EusseU 18 Mass., 1 118
Blanche V. Eogers 36 N. J. Eq., 563 ... 13
Blaney V. Hoke ....^ -14 Ohio St., 393 226
Blenv. Bear Eiver, etc , Co 20 Cal., 602... 289
Blenkinsopv. Clayton 7 Taunt., 597 159
Blessing v. House 3 Gill. & J., 390 36
BUght V. Ashley 1 Pet. C.WD., 15 226
Bliss V. Sohaub 48 Barb., 339 211
Blodgettv. Blodgett 48 Vt., 32 300
Bloomerv. Bloomer 2 Bradf . Surr., 339.. 140
Bloss V. Kittridge 5 Vt., 28 182
Blount V. Burrow 1 Ves. Jun., 546 132
Boalev. Mayor 19 C. B. N. S., 76.... 384
Boardman v. Brittania Co 35 Conn., 403 97
Boardman V. Cutler 138 Mass., 388 152
Boardmanv. Lake Shore, etc., E'y Co.. 84 N. Y., 157 255
Boardman v. Meriden Brittannia Co.-35 Conn., 403 -. 99
Boardman V. Spooner 13 AUen, 353... 158
Bodger V. Arch 38 Eng. L. &, Eq., 464 318
Boehem V. Combe 3M. &S., 172 236
Boepplerv. Menown 7Mo. App.,447 263
Bogan V. Finley ...19 La. An., 94 126
Bogert V. Indianapolis 13 Ind., 134. 33
Bolton V. Eiddle 35 Mich., 13 187
Boucicaultv. Wood 3Biss.,34. 84
Bonner V. Campbell .48 Pa. St., 386 40
Boody V.Davis 30 N. H., 140 394
XXll TABLE OF OASES.
PAGE.
Boon V. Moss 70N. Y.,465 166
Borradaile V. Hunter 5 M. &G., 639 233
Boston, etc., R. B. Co. v. N. Y. & N.
E. R. R. Co 13 R. I., 360 270
Boston Music Hall v. Cory 139 Mass., 435 357
Bostwickv. Leach 3 Day, 476 154
Boughner v. Meyer.. 5 Colo,, 71 335
Bowenv. Buck 13 Pa. St., 146 166
Bowenv. Burk .13 Pa. St., 146 301
Bowenv. Darby 14 Fla.. 303 375
Bower V.Stoddard ...10 Met., 375.... 38
Bowery Fire Ins. Co. v. N. Y. Ins. Co.l7 Wend., 359 322
Bowmanv. Conn 8 Ind., 58... 155
Boycev. Washburn 4 Hun, 793 153
Boyd V.Brown 6 Barr., 310 175
Boyd V. Gunnison .'.UW. Va., 1 187
BoydeUv. Drummond... ...11 East., 142 162
Boylenv. Meeker ....38N. J.L., 274 140
Boyntonv. Babbitt 2 Vent., 68 323
Brackettv. Bullard 12Met.,308 297
Brackett v. Hoitt ...30 N. H., 357 115
Bradbury v. Beeton 39 Law J. Rep. Ch. (N. S.), 57 101
Braddock v. Phil., etc., R. R. Co 45 N. J. L., 863 358
Bradshaw V. Heath ...:13 Wend., 407 381
Bradford V. Fox ...38 N. Y., 389 196
Bradley V. Norton 33 Conn., 157 99
Bradley V. Michael 1 Ind., 551 301
Bragleman V. Dane 69N. Y., 69_ 300
Brainerd V. Brainerd 15 Conn., 575.. j 294
Brand V. Fetch 3 Keyes, 409 157
Brandon v. Huntsville Bank 1 Stewart (Ala.), 320. 59
Brant V. Bowlby 3 B. & Adol., 933... 166
Brantley V. Thomas 22 Tex,, 270 184
Braunstein v. Accidental Death Ass.
Co 1 Best & Smith, 782. 337
Bray V.Bates 9 Met, 235 302
Brennanv. Whittaker 15 Ohio St., 446 39)
Brewerv. Smith 3 Greenl., 44 164
Brewer V. Smith 3 Greenl., 44 168
Brewerv. Browne 68 Ala., 310 40
TABLE OF OASES. XXIU
PAGE.
Brewsterv. Taylor 63 N. Y., 587 156
Brickerv. Hughes 4 Ind., 146 154
Bridge V. Ford 4 Mass., 641 383
Bridges V. Smyth .3 Moore & P., 740... 818
Bridges v. Hawkesworth 8 Eng. L. & Eq. , 434. 58
Bridges v. Hawkesworth 7 Eng. L. & Eq. , 424. 60
Bridgfordv. Crocker 60 N. Y., 637 203
Briggs V. Oliver 68N. Y., 339_ 303
Briggsv. Hosford 1 32 Pick. , 288, 289 342.
Brigham V. Mead 10 Allen, 345 265, 266
Bringhoffv. Munzenmaier 20 Iowa, 513 296
Brightwell V. Mallory ...10 Yerg., 196 46,357
Brink V. Gould 7 Lans., 435 126
Brinley V. Kupper 6 Pick., 179 35
Brittain V. McKay 1 Ired.,365 154
Broadhead V. McKay 46 Ind., 595 297,298
Brogden v. Metrop. Railway Co 2 App.'Cas., 666 145
Bronson V. Rhodes .7 Wall., 229.^ 275
B rough ton V. Silloyifay, 114 Mass., 71 195
Brown V. Brown 18 Conn., 410 134
Brown V. Graham 24111., 628 36
Brown V. Greer 13 Ga., 285 802
Brown V. HaU 5 Lans., 177 155
Brower V. Harbeck ..9 N. Y., 589 117
Brown v. Higgs 4 Ves., 708, n. b..2.. 246
Brownv. Railroad Co... ...'.44N. Y., 79, 86 327
Brown v. Roger Williams Ins. Co. . . . 7 R. I. , 301 235
5 R. I., 304 235
Brownv. Sanborn ..21 Minn., 403 _ 151, 155
Brown V. Sax 7 Cow., 95 70
Brownv. Stanclift SON. Y.,637 153
Brownv. State Bank...' 10 Ark., 134 218
Brownv. Sullivan 62 Ind., 281 59
Brownv. U. S -.8 Cranch, 110 58
Brown v. Wootton ...Cro. Jac, 73 m
Brown v. Whipple 58 N. H., 309. 161
Brownlee V. Bolton. 44Mich., 318 _ 202
Brownson v. Gleason 7 Barb., 472 186
Brooklyn Bank v- De Grau w 23 Wend., 343 285
Bruce et ux. v. Savannah Mut. Ins.
Co - >- 34Ga.,97 235
XXIV TABLE OP OASES,
TAGE.
Bruen V. Marquand '. 17 Johns., 58 288
Bi-unshiUv. Muir 15 Up. Can.Q.B., 213 187
Brunswick V. Dunning 7 Mass., 445, 447 43
Bryan V. Blythe 4 Blackf . (Ind.), 249. 379
Bryant V. Booze 55 Ga., 438 146
Bryant V. Crosby 40 Me., 9 183
Bryant V. Proctor 14 B. Mon., 457 285
Bryant V. Witcher 52 N. H., 158, 161... 60
Buchan v. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch., 165. .3 Barb. Ch., 165 40
Buck V. Hermance 1 Blatchf., 398 81
Buck V. Rockwell 27 Vt, 157 153
Buckv. SpofEord 31 Me, 34 35
Buckland v. Eice. 40 Ohio St., 526 101
Buckle V. Eckhart 3 N. Y., 132 39
Buckley V. Morgan 46 Conn., 393 177
Bulkleyv. Barker.. 6 Ex., 164..-. 38
Bulkly V. Orms _Brayt. (Vt.), 134 .... 107
Bucklin v. Thompson 1 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.), 323 299
Buckoutv. Swift 27 Cal., 488 16
Buckingham V. Smith 23 Conn., 453 217
Buckup V. Valentine 19 Wend., 554 3l3
Budd V. MvQtnomah St. Ry. Co.. 15 Pac. Rep., 659.... 358, 260
Buellv. Chapin 99 Mass., 596 197
Buford V. Keokuk, etc. , Packet Co. . .3 Mo. App. ,159 ■ 271
Buffalo City Cemetery v. Buffalo 46 N. Y., 503 23
Buffalo & A. R. R. Co. v. Cary 36 N. Y., 75 363
Buffalo, etc. , R. R. Co. v. Dudley 14 N. Y. , 336 256, 257
Buffarv. Bradford 3 Atk., 330 246
BuUv. Griswold, 19 111., 631 154
Bumgardnerv. Taylor 38 Ala., 687... 199
Bungev. Koop , 5 Rob., 1 386
Bunacleugh V. Polman 3Daly,-336 293
Bunn V. Markham 7 Taunt., 224, 231... 130,133
Burd V. Burd .4 Pa. St., 183 24*
Burgen V. Udal 31 Barb., 9 139
Burgess V. Heape 1 Hill (S. C), Ch., 397 123
Burkholder v. Plank 19 Smith (Pa. ), 335 . . 387
Burne V. Richardson 4 Taunt., 730 313
Burnes V. Simpson'..'. 9 Kan., 658 110
Burnside V. Weightman 9 Watts, 46 16
TABLE OF CASES. XXV
PAGE.
Burton V. Tannehill BBlaokf,, 470 397
BurraU v. Bushwick R. E. Co .75 N. Y., 211 353, 254, 268
Burrell V. N. T., etc., Co 14 Mich., 34 205
Burrillv. NahantBank... 3 Met., 163 44
Burrows V. Smith ION. Y., 550 257
Burtenshaw V. Gilbert Cowp., 51 140
Buschman v. Cold 53 Md., 203, 207 174
Bush V. Holmes .- 58 Me., 417 204
Bush V. "Wilkins 4 John. Oh., 506.... 141
Busk V. Davis 3 M. &. S., 397 168
Busterv. Newkirk.. .20 Johns., 75 65
Butler's Case 3 Inst., 107 59
Butler V. Hildreth 5 Met., 49 177
Butler V. Howe 18 Me., 397 215
Butler V. Northumberland 50 N. H., 33 207
Buxton V. Edwards 134 Mass., 567 218
Byersv. Byers 6 Dana (Ky.), 313 136
Byron V. Johnson 8 Tenn. R.. 410 318
Buzzard V. Capel 8 Barn. & C, 141.... 309
Cable V. McCune 26 Miss., 371 277
CadweUv. Blake 6 Gray, 403 181
Cahoonv. Ring 1 ClifE., 593 75
CaldweU V. Fifield 24 N. J. L., 17
CaldweU V. Pickens: 39Ala., 514 128
Calkins V. Clement .54 Vt., 635 297
Calkins V. Falk 38 How. Pr., 63 163
CaUagan V. Myers 89 III., 570 165
Calvin V. Williams 3 H. & J., 38 153
CambeU v. N. E. Mut. Life Ins. Co. ..98 Mass., 381 233
Cambridge V. Roas 8Ves., 12,15 244
Cameron V. Wells 30 Vt., 633 188
Campv. Hamlin 55 Ga., 259 _ 201
Campbell V. Brown 20Ga..415 288
Campbell V. N. E. Mut. Life Ins. Co.. 98 Mass., 381 231
Campbell v. Phelps 1 Pick., 63 Ill
Campbell V. Strong Hemp., 365 383
Campbell v. Thompkins 5 Stew. Ch., 170 287
XXVI TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE.
Camp's Appeal - 36 Conn., 88 126
Canal Co. v. Eay 101 U. S.,523, 527... 284, 288
Candee v. Deer^ .-54 111., 437.... 101
Canfield V. Bostwick... 31 Conn., 550 _ 143
Cannanv. Bryce 3 B. & Aid., 179, 183, 184. 179
Cannon V. Folsom 3 Iowa, 101 204, 305
Cannon v. Lusk 3 Lans., 311 37
Canrolev. Cone 4 Barb., 320 276
Carey V. Faden 1 5 Ves.,24 , 89
Carletonv. Lovejoy 54 Me., 445 123
Carlilev. Burley ! 3 Greenl., 350 Ill
Carlislev. Cahawba& Marion R.E. Co.4 Ala. (N. S.), 70 359
Carlisle V. Kinney ...66 Barb., 363 301
Carman V. Smick 15 N. J. L., 253 150
Carpenter v. Atherton ..25 Cal., 564 275
Carpenter V. Beer Comb., 346 180
Carpenterv. Dodge .30 Vt., 595 136
Carpenter V. Galloway 73Ind.,418 155
Carpenterv. Northfield Bank 39Vt.,46 274
Carpenter v. Prov. Wash. Ins. Co 16 Pet., 495...' 321, 239
Caifpenterv. Snelling 97 Mass., 453'. 293
Carpenterv. Stevens 12 Wend., 589 147
Carrington v. Merchants' Ins. Co 8. Pet., 495 58
Carson V. Arctic Mining Co 5 Mich., 288 260
Carson v. Marine Ins. Co 3 Wash. C. O. , 468 . . 324
Carter V. Burr 39 Barb., 59 331
Carter V. Boehm 3 Burr, 1095 329
Carter v. Humbolt Fire Ins. Co 13 Iowa, 387 335
Carter V. Miller 4 Mass., 559 36
Carver V. Bowles 3 Russ. &My., 301.. 248
Carver V. Oakley 4 Jones (N. C), Eq., 85 346
Casonv. Cheeley 6Ga.,554 150
Castleman V. Griffin 13 Wis., 535 176
Caswell V.Keith .13 Gray, 351 294
Cathcart v. Fire Department, etc 26 N. Y., 529 106
Caughran V. Giknan .73 Iowa, 570 381
Caulkins v. Hellman 47N. Y., 449 156
Cave V. Hastings 7 Q. B. D., 135...... 163
Ceasv. Bramley 18 Hun, 187, 188 393
Central Branch B'nk v. Fritz 20 Kan., 430 154
TABLE OF CASES. XXVll
PAGE.
Central Railway v. Hisch. Law Rep.. .2 H. L., 99, 120 174
Chadwick v^ Butler 28 Mich., 349. 204
Chafife V. Ludeling 1 27 La. An., 607 263
Chaflfeev. Rutland R. R. Co .55 Vt., 110 254
Chairesv. Brady 19Fla.,133 294
Chambers v. Garland 3 Green, G. (la.), 323 217
Champion V. Plummer 3 B. &P., 252 162
Chancellor v. Wiggins .4 B. & Mon., 201 183
Chandler V. Brown 77111., 333 263
Chandlery. Edson 9 Johns., 362. 70
Chandler V. Puller 10 Tex., 2 191
Chaplin V. Rogers. 1 East, 195 159
Chapinv. School District 85N. H.,450 181
Chapman V. Ingi-am 30 Wis., 290 202
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge.7 Pick. , 344, 44.") 4
Charters. Stevens... 8 Denio, 33 _ 298, 300
Chartran V. Schmidt JRice, 229 291
Chase V. EastTenn., etc., R. R. Co...5Lea, 415 260
Chase V. Lord 1 77N.Y., 1 263
Chase V. Walters 28 Iowa, 460 210
Chaworth v. Beech 4 Ves., 555 242
Cheetham V. Ward IB. &P., 630 251
Chelsey V. Welch 37M:e.,106_ 15
Chelsynv. Dalby.. 4 Young & C, 238... 217
Cheney's Case 3 Leon, 260 817
Chesley V. Joselyn .7 Gray, 489.... 147
Chesley V. St. Clair... 1 N. H., 189 211
Chester Glass Co v. Dewey 16 Mass , 94 ... 257
Chintz V. Surey : 6 Esp , 267 156
Chipman V. Marting 13Johns.,340 312
Chouteau Spring Co. V. Harris J30Mo.,382. _ 257,265
Christenson v. Eno.'.... 106 N. Y., 97, 100... 261
Christman V. Floyd 9 Wend., 340. _ 313
Christmas v. Whingates .3 Swab. & Tr., 81 140
Christopher v. Austin 11 N. Y., 216. ...^._ 321
Church V. Feterow 2 Pen. & Watts, 301. 197
Church V. Sherman 36 Wis., 404 44
Claflinv. Carpenter .4 Met., 580 _ 153
Clappv. Hale 1 113 Mass., 368 199
Clappv. Peck 55 la., 370 191
XXVUl TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE.
Clappv. Sohmer 55 la., 273 191
Clapp V. Stoughton 10 Biok., 463 115
Clark V. Bogardus 13 Wend., 67 _ 250
Clark V. Bryan 16 Md., 171 279
Clarkv. Bush 3 Cow., 151. 288
Clark V. Davies _1 Redf. Surr. Rep., 249. 139
Clark V. Depew 25 Penn. St., 509 128, 130
Clarkv. Draper 19 N. H., 419. _ 201
Clark V. Butcher 9 Cow., 674 217
Clark V. Jetton 5 Sneed, 229 249
Clarkv. Nichols _107 Mass., 547 152
Clarkv. Finney 7 Cow., 687 205
Clark V. Protection Ins. Co ..1 Story, 109. 107
Clarkv. Tucker. 2Sandf.,157 '... 157
Clark V. Whittaker ...18 Conn., 543 297
Clarke v.-Thomas 34 Ohio St., 46 263
Clement, etc., Co. v. Meserole 107 Mass., 362 203
Cloud V. Clinkinbeard 8 B. Mon., 397, 399.. 251
Coats V. Holbrook 2 Sandf . Ch., 586.^... 99
Cockv. Honychurch... ..TRaym., 203 285
2Kele, 690 285
Cookerell V. Cincinnati Ins. Co 16 Ohio,148 231
^ Coddington V. Johnstone 1 Beav., 520 16
Coev. Cassidy 72N. Y., 123, 137... 294^
CofEeen V. Brunton A McLean, 516 99
Coffman V. Hampton 2 Watts & S., 399... 202
Cofleldv. Clark 2 Cal., 102.. 205
Cohen V. Dupont 1 Sandf., 260 323
Colbum V. Simms ..2 Hare, 543_ 84
Cole V. Patterson 25 Wend., 456 323
Cole V. Ryan 52 Barb ,168. 257
Coleman V. Coleman 2 Ves. Jr., 640; 160.. 241, 242
Colemanv. Darling 66 Wis., 155 41
Coles v. Iowa State Mut. Ins. Co 18 Iowa, 426. 238
Colgan V. Danheiser .35 FedRep.,150 98
Colladay V. Baird .4Phila., 139..... 103
CoUender V. Griffith 11 Blatchf., 211 89
Collins V. Tillon 26 Conn., 368 294
Coltv. Mass. Arms Co 1 Fish., 108 7-1
Columbian Ins. Co. v. Lawrence 2 Pet., 725 230
TABLE OF CASES. XXIX
PAGE
Comanv. Lakey SON. Y., 345 _ 296
Combs V. Bateman ..10 Barb., 573 159
Comfort V. Kiersted 26Barb.,473 ' 164
CoEomercial Bank of Albany v,
Hughes 17 Wend., 94 276
■Commercial, etc., Ins. Co. v. Union
Mut. Ins. Co 19 How., 818 234,337
Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Hock-
ing 115 Pa. St., 407 237
Commonwealth v. Clark 14 Gray, 267 143
Commonwealth v. Kneeland ^ 20 Pick., 306, 330 91
Commonwealth v. Loveridge 11 Mass. , 337 383
CoEomonwealth Y. Otis 16Mass., 198 383
Concklin V. Havens 13 Johns., 314 67
Condermanv. Smith 41Barb.,404. 148
Congregational Society V. Fleming.. .11 Iowa, 533 23
Congress & Empire Spring Co. v. High
Rock Congress Spring Co .45 N, T., 391 100
Conner V. Carpenter ..38Vt.,237 393, 298
Conover V. Earl 36 Iowa, 167 37
Conover V. HoflEman 15 Abb. Pr. R., 100.. 140
Consinery V. Pearsall. 8Jones&Sp., 114... 302
Converse V. Converse. 21 Vt., 168 138
Converse V. Ferre 11 Mass., 335 36
Conway V. Reyburn 33 Ark., 390 218
Coochv. Goodman 3 Q. B.,590 387
Cook V. Com'rs of Hamilton Co 6 McLean, 613. 205
Cook V. JKllard ..65 N. Y., 353 151
Cookv. Oxley 3 T. R., 653 145
Cook V. Patterson ...35 Ala., 103 59
Cook V.Phillips..-. 56 N. Y., 310 180
Coolidgev. Brigham 1 Met., 550 389
Coombs V. Bristol & Exeter R. R. Co.. 37 L. J. Ex., 401 157
3H. &N., 510 157
Coombs V. Gorden 59 Me., Ill 60
Cooper V. Brock 41 Mich., 488 393
Cooper V. Burr .45 Barb., 9 126
Cooperv. Davis 15 Conn., 556, 563... 16, 17
Cooper V. Presb. Ch.... 83 Barb., 232 ' 33
Cooper V. Sunderland. 3 Iowa, 114 803
XXX TABLE OF CASE8.
PAGE.
Cooper V. Shepherd 3 C. B., 266 Ill, 391
Cooper V. Smith. 15 East, 103 162
Cooper V. Woolfit 2 Hurl. & N., 123... 16
Coppin V. Coppin 2 P. "Wms., 391, 306. 250
Coranthv. Forsyth 68 Ga., 560 287
Corbynv. French 4Ves,418 246
Corcoran v. Webster 50 Wis., 125 295
Corn V. Mut. Assurance Co 6 Crabbe, 192 288
Cornell V.Hall 22 Mich., 377 801
Cornell V. Lamb .2 Cow., 653 312
Corwin V.Daly .7Bosw., 323 98
Cotter V. Layer .2 P. Wms., 633, 624. 141
Cotton V. Gillard 44 L. J. (N. S.)Ch., 90 100
Coty V. Barnes .20Vt.,78. 297
Couohman V. Wright 8 Neb., 1 293
Count Phalen's Case L. R. 9Eq., 107 261
Cowin V.Toole .31 Iowa, 513 281
Cowels V. Ricketts .llowa, 582... 210
Cowley V. Smith 46 N. J. L., 380 175
Cowling V. Cowling 26 Beav., 449 244
Coxv. Bradfish 35 Me., 302 48
Coxv. Bailey 6 M. & G., 193 15P
Coxv. Griggs _2 Fish , 174 75,76
Coxv. Harris. 17 Md., 23, 31 24ft
Craddock v. Riddlesbarger 1.2 Dana (K), 206 17
Craft V. Thompson 51 N. H., 536 282
Craig V. Eittredge .46 N. H., 57.. 131
Craig V. Tappin _2 Sandf. Ch., 78, 90_ 298
Crandall V. Lincoln .53 Conn., 73 367
Crane V.Pratt 12 Gray, 348 197
Crane v. Price Webs. Pat. Cas., 409 73
Crapsterv. Griffith 3 Bland., 525...: 37
Crawford v. Gaulden 33 Ga., 173... 214
Crawford V. Roher 59 Md., 599. 25a
Crawford V. The William Penn 3 Wash., 484. 805
Crawford V. Roher 59 Md., 590.. 361
Cray v. Hartford Ins. Co 1 Blatohf., 280 286-
Crease v. Babcock 51 Mass., 525 267
Creed V. Creed 11 Clark &F., 508... 242
Cressy V. Sabre 17 Hun, 120 14T
TABLE OF CASES. XXXI
PAGE.
CresweU v. Lawton .7 Gill & J. (Md.), 227 136
Creuse V. Defiganier lOBosw., 122 217
Crevilingv. Wood 95 Pa. St., 152, 158.. 142
Croft V. Bennett 2 N. T., 258 165
Croft V. Day 7 Beav., 84 102
Crommelinv. Thiess 31 Ala., 412 321
Crommelin v. N. Y. & Harlem R. B.
Co 4Keyes, 90 201
Cromptonv. Pratt 105 Mass., 255 295
Crook V. Cowen 64 N. C, 743 145
Crosby Y. Loop .13 lU., 625 323
Crosby V. Wadsworth 6 East, 602 153
Crosby V. Watkins 12 Cal., 85 204
Cross V. Gardner Carth., 90 182
Cross V. O'Donnell .44 N. Y., 661 156
Crossley v. Conn. Fire Ins. Co 27 Fed. Rep., 30 237
Crouch V. Smith 1 Md. Ch. Rep., 401.. 7
Cucvilley V. Hernandez 103 U. S., 105 218
Cullenv. Bimm 37 Ohio St., 236 184
Cumberland Valley Mut. Prot. Co. v.
ScheU ..29 Pa. St., 31 238
Cummings V. Arnold 3 Met., 486 288
Curel T. Wunder 5 Ohio St., 92 297
Currie v. Anderson ..2 E. & E., 592 157
29L. J. Q. B.,87.... 157
Currie v. Mut. Ass. Soc 4 H. & M. (Va.), 315. 238
Curry V. Woodward 44 Ala., 305 255
53 Ala., 371... 262,269
Curtis V. Groat. 6 Johns., 168, 169 ... Ill, 70
Cusac V. Robinson ...30 L. J. Q. B., 261... 156
IB. S., 299 156
Cushman v. Holyoke ..34 Me., 289 165
Cushman V. Libbey 15 Gray, 358 l... 195
Cushman v. North Western Ins. Co. . .34 Me. , 487 224
Cuthbert v. Cuthbert 3 Yeates, 486 242
Cuthbert V. Kuhn 3Whart., 366 322
Cuyler V. Cuyler 2 Johns., 186 288
XXXll TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE.
D.
Dabovich V. Emeric -13 Cal., 171 205
D'Aquilav. Lambert 3 Eden, 77 190
s. c. Amb., 399 190
Dainv. Cowing .23 Me., 347.. 36
Dallardv. Botts 6 Allen (N. B.),443.. 157
Dalton V. Midland Counties R'y Co.. .13 C. B., 474 255
Dambmannv. Sohulting .75 N. Y., 55 173
Damev. Dame 38N. H.,429 154
Danav. Fielder 13 N. Y., 40 304
Danav. Mtmro 38Barb.,528 339
Danbury, etc., E. E. Co. v. Wilson.. .33 Conn., 435.. 360
Danforth V. Culver .11 Johns., 146 217
Danforth V, Walker. 37 Vt., 339. 203
Daniel" V. Owen 70 Ala., 397. 41
Daniel V.Wood 1 Pick., 103 21
Daniels v. Bailey 43 Wis., 566 153
Daniels v. Hudson Eiver Fire Ins. Co..l3 Cush., 416 231, 233
Daniels v. Pond .._1 Pick., 371 30
Darling V. Hubbell 9 Conn., 350 283
Darrahv. Baird 101 Pa. St., 265 13
Dartmouth Coll. v. Woodward..... 4 Wheat., 518, 633, 686 42, 43, 109
Dauchy V. Brown .34 Vt.,197 263
Davenport v. Peoria, etc., Ins. Co 17 Iowa, 276 234, 227
Davidson V. Eankin 34 Cal, 53 363
Daviesv. McLean 31 W. E., 364_ 187
38 L. T. (N. S.), 113.. 187
Davis V. Fyde 4 Nev. &M., 463 313
Davis V. Haycock L. E. 4 Exch., 371... 266
Davis V. Hill 3 N. H., 383 165
Davis V. HpweU 83 N. J. Eq., 73 41
Davis V. Hubbard 38 Ala., 185, 189 300
Davis V. Lottich 46N. Y.,393 34, 36
Davis V. Palmer 3 Brock., 298, 810... 73
Davis V.Payne 4 Rand., 834 815
Davis V. Steiner 14 Pa. St., 275 317
Dawson V.King 30 Md., 443 _ 317
Day V. Bassett 103 Mass., 445 395
Day V. Pool .52 N. Y., 416 207
Day V. Postal Tel. Co 7Atl. Rep., 608 268
TABLE OF OASES. XXXIU
PAGE.
Day V. "Watson 8 Mich., 535 881
Dayton V. Borst 31 N. Y., 435 263
Dayton V. Trull J38 Wend., 345 195
Deanv. Tallman - 105 Mass., 443 ... 156
Dease V.Jones 23 Miss., 133 215
Debowv. Colfax 5Halst., 411 16
DeCordon v. Smith 9 Texas, 129 163
Deedly V. Cadwell 19 Conn., 218 300
Deganv. Livingston 15 Mo., 230.. 142
Deemingv. Foster .42 N. H., 165 184
DeGampartv. Brown 28 Ark., 166 196
DeKuyper v. Witteman 33 Fed. Eep., 871.... 101
Delafleld V. Parish 25 N. Y., 9, 29. i.... 138,140
Delasherois v. Delasherois 11 H. L. Cas., 62 142
Delaware, etc., Co. v. Sanson ...1 Binn., 70 260
Delmotte v. Taylor 1 Redf. Surr. Eep , 417. 134
Demarestv. Wynkoop 1.3 Johns. Ch., 129 215
Denham V. Sankey 38 Iowa, 269... 295
Dennis v. Leclerc 1 Mart. (Orleans T.), 297. 93
Dennis V. Sharman 31 Ga., 607 199
Denny V. Faulkner ...22 Kan., 89.. 298
Denny V. Parnell IRol. Abr., 591L. 28. 317
Denton V. Livingston. ...9 Johns., 96 46
Derby V. Derby 3 Drew., 495 40
Derrick v. Monette. 73 Ala., 75 145
Derringer V. Plate 29 Cal., 292 101
Despatch Line of Packets v. Bellamy
Mf'gCo , 12 N. H., 205 13
Deupree v. Deupree .45 Ga., 415 141
Devane V. Fennell ..2 bed., 37. 165
Devane v. Larkins 3 Jones (N. C), Eq., 377. 244
Devoev. Brandt-... 53 N. Y.,462.. 177
Dew V. Jeffries Cro. Eliz., 353 388
De Witt V. Hastings 69 N. Y., 518 264
DeWittv. Yates 10 Johns., 156 243
Dexter v..Voorhies 81 N. Y., 153.. 283
Dibley V. Sheldon 10 Blatch., 178 177
Dick V. Webster 6 Wis., 481 283
Dickinson v.Dodds 2 Ch. D., 463, 472.... 145
Dickinson V. Hatfield 1 Moody& Rob., 141. 217
c
XXXIV TABLE OF CASES.
FAQE.
Diehl V. Adams Co. Mut. Ins. Co 58 Pa. St., 443 238
DingweUv. Askew.. 1 Cox, 427 248
Dinsmore v. Dinsmore 31 Me., 433 217
Disbrowv. Jones Harr. (Mich.) Ch., 48 231
Dittmar V. Norman 118 Mass., 319 144
Divine v. McCormiok 50 Barb., 116 185
Dixey V. Pollock 8 Cal., 570... 281
Dixon V. Yates Bam. & Ad., 313 165
Doak V. Bank of the State 6 Ired (N. C), L. , 309. 399
Doanev. Badger. 13 Mass., 65 86
Dodge V. Kellock 13 Me., 136 283
Doev. Mace 7 Black, 2 16,17
Doed. Stewart V. Sheffield 13 East, 526 246
Dole V. Lincoln .31 Me., 423 136
Domick Y. Eeichenback 10 Serg. & E., 84 138
Dominick v. Moore 2 Bradf. Surr., 201_. 244
Donahue V. Lea 1 Swan (Tenn.), 119. 248
Donaldson V. Becket .4 Burr., 2408 83, 84
Donaldson V. FarweU 93 U.S., 631 178
Doremusv. Howard .23 N. J. L., 390 303
Doughty V. Doughty... .27 N. J. Eq., 315 283
Douglassv. McAllister 3 Cranch, 298 305
Douglass Axe Co. v. Gardner 10 Cush. ,88 207
Dow V. Prescott .12 Mass., 419_ 283
Dowv. Sanborn .3 AUen, 181 178
Dow V. Worthen 37Vt., 108 159
DowlingT. McKenney 124 Mass., 480 143
Downerv. Smith 32Vt., 1 289
Downs V. Nat. Exch. Bank... 91 U. S., 618 166
Downs V. Eoss 33 Wend., 370 151
Drake V. MitcheU 3 East, 358... Ill
Dr. Jaeger's Sanitary Woolen System
Co. V. Boutillier ..47 Hun, 521 97
Drury v. Smith 1 P. Wms., 404 133
Dubois V. Dubois 6 Cow., 499 276
Duolaud V. Eoaseau J3 La. An., 168 128
Dudley V. Hurst 67 Md., 44 13
Duffieldv. Elwees 1 Bligh (N. S.), 583.. 134
Duke of Queensbury v. ShebDear 2 Eden, 329 98
Duncan v. Self.... 1 Murph. (N. C.),446 128
TABLE OP OASES. XXXV
PAGE.
Dunham v. Johnson 135 Mass., 310 219
Dunkv. Hunter 3 Barn. & Adol., 332 311
Dunlop V. Lambert 6 Clark & F., 600 187
Dunne v. Furgeson 1 Hayes, 540 154
Duppav. Mayo ..1 Saund. R., 287 314, 333
Dupperv. Mayo 1 Saund., 276 f. n. 4. 185
Dupuy V. Gibson 36111., 197 800, 302
Durantv. Friend 5 DeGex & Sm., 343. 248
Durfee V. Jones ._ .11 R. I., 586 59
Durkee v. Central Railway Co - .29 Vt. , 127 146
Dustan V. McAndrew 44 N. Y., 72 201
Dutch Church V. Mott .7 Paige, 83 45
Duvergier v. Fellows 5 Bing., 248 46
E.
Eager V. Commonwealth 4 Mass., 182 215
Eagle Ins. Co. v. Lafayette Ins. Co.. .9 Ind,, 443 232, 223
Eakright v. Logansport & N. Ind. R.
R. Co 13111., 404 258
Easter v. Allen .8 Allen, 7 177
Eastman V. Avery 28 Me., 248 298
Eastman v. Shaw 65 N. Y., 522 209
Eastman V. Wright 6 Pick., 316 388
Eaton V. Munroe 53 Me., 631 69, 70
Eaton V. Whiting 3 Pick., 484 300
Eaves v.Estes... 10 Kan., 814 13,296
Edan v. Dudfield 1 Q. B., 306 158
Edgerton v. Hodge ..41 Vt., 676 159
Edinburgh, etc., Ry. v. Hibblewhite..6 M. & W., 707 259
Edwards v. Grand Trunk R. R. Co. ..54 Me., 105 158, 159
48 Me., 379 150,153
Eldridge v. Eldridge 6 Cush., 516 "244
Elgeev. Cotton Cases. 23 Wall., 187 165
Elkins V. Camden, etc., R. R. Co 86 N. J. Eq., 288 254
Ellershaw V. Magniac 6 Ex., 570 166
Ellicott V. United States Ins. Co. .8 Gill & Johns. (Md.), 166 239
Elhngton V. Charleston 51 Ala., 166 397
Elliott V. Davenport 1 P. Wms., 88 346
Elliott V. Porter 5 Dana, 299 Ill
xx:;yi table of oases.
PAGE,
Elliott V. Stoddard 98 Mass., 145 144
Ellis V. Andrews 56 N. Y., 83 174
Ellis V. "Walker Ambler, 310 243
Ellison V. Brigham 38Vt.,64 153
Ellison V. Daniels 11 N. H., 280 300
EUison V. Ellison 6 Ves., 656 127
EUithorp v. Robertson 4 Blatchf . ,307 74, 75
Elmore V. Kingsgate 5 B. & C, 588 162
Elmore V. Stone 1 Taunt., 458 _ 159
Endersv. Enders..: 2 Barb., 362, 367 242
Engmanv. Immel ..59 Wis., 249 218
Enoch Morgan Sons' Co. v. Schwaok-
hoefer 55 How. Pr., 37 103
Erskine v. Plummet 7 Green!., 447 153
Erwin v. Oregon Ey. & Nav. Co 37 Fed. Eep., 635.._ 270
Essex Co. V, Pacific Mills 14 Allen, 389 275
Essex V. Essex 30 Beav., 443 40
Essex Bridge Co. v. Tuttle 3 Vt., 393 259
Evanv. Herring .27 N. J. L., 243 314
Evansv. Coventry 25 L. J. Ch., 489 267
Evans V. Darlington .5Blackf., 320 398
Evansv. Merriken .8Gill& J., 39 300
Evansv, Powis lExch., 907 285
Evans V. Roberts ...5 B & C, 836 154
Evans v. Secrest 2 Ind., 545 122
Evansv. Von Laer 33 Fed. Rep., 153 98
Everett V. Hall .67 Me., 497 _ 295
Ewellv. Crocker 4 Bosw., 23 239
Ex parte Smyth 1 Swanst., 338 323
Ex parte GUdhin 8 Met., 168, 170 278
Ex parteGouthwa.it 3Mac. &G., 187 ... 267
Ex parte Smith _16 U. S. Pat. Gaz., 179_ 100
Ex parte 'Ba.gsha.w. .L. R. 4 Eq., 341 271
Ex parte Beresford 2 Macn. &G., 197... 261
£a; parte Miles 15 Q. B. Div., 39.... 193
.Ec parte Thompson 4 Bradf. Surr. Rep., 154 139
Ex parte Halliday 16 U. S. Pat. Gaz., 506. 100
i7a! parte Dubost _.18 Ves., 140, 150 137
Ex parte Brick Presb. Ch 3 Edw. Ch., 155 23
Ex parte Reformed Presb. Ch .4 Sandf. Ch., 471 23
TABLE OF CASES. XXXVU
PAGE.
Ex'rs of Gilmore v. Bank of Cinoiimati.8 Ohio, 63, 71 _ 265
Eyrev. Higbee 23 How. Pr , 198.... 93
23 How Pr., 198.... 94
F.
FairchUd V, Lynch 99N. Y., 359: _ 382
Fairfield C. T. Co. v. Thorp 13 Conn., 173 35£
Fallow V. Chidester .46 la., 588 141
Fallows V. Taylor 7 T. E., 475 3^7
Falmouthv. Thomas 1 C. & M., 105 153
Fargesv. Pugh 93 N. C, 31 178
Farina V. Home 16 M. & W., 119 158
Farley V. Craig .6 Halst., 363 333
Farmer V. Grose .42 Cal., 169 _ 394
Farmers, etc., Bank v. Lang .87 N. Y., 309 392
Farmers, etc., Bank v. Logan 74 N. Y., 568 166
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Farmers'
Loan & Trust Co. of Kansas 31 Abb. N. C, 104. _ 103
Farquharson V. Cave 3 Coll.. 356 133
Farrellv. Bean. 10 Md., 317 394
Farrow V. Bivings 13 Rich. Eq., 25 267
Farwellv. Mather 10 Allen, 322 161
Fassettv. Boylston 19 Pick., 361 23
Faust's Adm'rx V. Birner 80Mo.,414 246
Favorite V. Deardoflf 84Ind.,555 18
Fawcett V. Laurie 1 Drew. & Sm., 193. 255
Fawcettv. Osborn : 33 IU.,411 183
Faxon V. Durant _...9 Met., 330 135
Fay V. Muzzey 13 Gray, 53 30
Feisev. Aquilar 3 Taunt., 506 234
FeUv. Muller :.78Ind., 507 304
Fell V. McHenry 43 Pa. St., 41.. 338
Fentonv. Braden — 2 Cranch C. C, 650. 149
Ferguson V. Wilson ..L. E., 2 Ch., 77 257
Ferguson V. Davol Mills _7 Phila., 253 100
'2Brewst.,214, 314.. 97,100
Ferrie V. The Public Administrator.. 3 Bradf. Surr. Eep.,
240,263,263... 113, 115, 116
Ferry V. The Bank of Central N. Y... 15 How. Pr. Eep.,
445,451 117
XXXVUl TABLE OF OASES.
PAGE.
Fessler v. Love 48 Pa. St., 407 306
Fetridgev. Wells.. 23 How. Pr., 385.... 98, 100
Field V. Flanders 40 IU.,470 283
Field V. Pierce.. 102 Mass., 253, 261.. 254
I'iley V. Fassett... 44 Mo., 168 101
Knev. Hornsby .3 Mo. App , 61 152
Finley, etc., Co. v. Hurtz 34 Mich., 89 257
Finnv. Donahue.^ 35 Conn., 216 180
Finney V. Apgar ...31 N. J. L., 271 151
Fire Department of New York v. Kip.lO Wend. ,366 _ 107
First Nat. Bank v. Bailey 115 Mass., 230_ 166
First Nat. Bank v. McManigle 69 Pa. St., 156 197
Fishbackv. Van Dusen 33 Minn., Ill, 116... 167, 181
33 Am. L. E., 506,
note 167
Fishery. Essex Bank 5 Gray, 373, 378 354
Fisher V. Kuhn -54 Miss., 480..., 161
Fishery. Murray .IE. D. Sm., 341 41
Fisk V. Attorney General Law Rept. 4 Eq. , 531 245
Fiskv. Miller.. 20 Tex., 579 280
Fitch V. Burk ...38Vt., 689 165
Fitch V. Peckham .16 Vt., 150 250
Fitzmaarice V. Bailey 9 H. L. C, 78 152
Flaggv. Mann.. 14 Pick., 483 301
Flanders V. Barstow .18 Me., 357 293, 300
Flanders V. Chamberlain 34 Mich., 305 398, 300
Fleck V. Warner 35 Kan., 493 166
Flecknerv. U. S. Bank 8 Wheat., 338 44
Flick V. Weatherbee 30 Wis., 392 206
Fleicherman v. Newman ...16 N. Y. State Rep., 794 99
Fletcher v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. .. 18 Pick. ,419 230
Fletcher V. Ingram 46 Wis., 201 165
Fletcher V. McGill 10 N. E., 651 257
Flint V. Ohio Ins. Co 8 Ohio. 501 227
Floryv. Denny .7 Exch., 581 293
Floyd V.Brown 1 Rawle, 125 Ill
Folsom V. Marsh 2 Story, 109,118 89, 93
Fonvillev. Casey 1 Murphy (N. C), 387 148
Footv. Marsh 51 N. Y.,288 168
Foote, Appellant 22 Pick., 299 241
TABLE OF CASES. XXXIX
PAGE.
Footev. Colvin 3 Johns., 216 16
Foote V. Silsby 3 Blatohf., 260 73
Forbes V. Shattuck 23 Barb.. 568 37
Forbush v. Cook.... 20 Law R., 664 81
Ford V. Cobb 20 N. Y., 844 295, 296
Fordv. Ford .3 Foster (N. H.), 213. 248
Ford V, Ransom _39 How. Pr. (N. S.), 416 297
Foreman v. Nelson '. 2 Rich. Eq., 287 291
Forsyth v. Price 8 Watts, 282.... 17
Fortmanv. Goepper 14 Ohio St., 558 296
Fosdick V. Shall .99 U. S., 235, 250 ... 164.166
Foster V. Mabe 4 Ala., 403 154
Foster V. Smith 18 C. B., 156 182
Fountain V. Tyler 9 Price, 94, 101 .. . . " 241
Fourth Ecclesiastical Soc. v. Mather. .15 Conn. , 582 122
Fowlev. Spear "..7Penn.,L. J, 176... 101
Fowler V. Indemnity Ins. Co ..26N. Y., 422 230
Fowler V. Stoneman llTe.x;.,478 293
Foxv. Fox.. lAtk.,463 251
Fox V. Horab 1 Ired. (N. C), 358.. 269
Fragano V. Long. 4 B. &C., 219.- 169
Frank v. Calhoun .59 Pa. St., 381 275
Frank v. Miller ..38 Md., 461 161
Franklin Ins. Co. v. Drake 2 B. Mon. (Ky.). 47.. 280
Franklin Ins. Co. v. Findlay 6 Whart. (Pa.), 483.. 230
Franklin Sav. Inst. v. People's Sav.
Bank... _ —
Franklin Bridge Co. v. Wood 14Ga.,80 43
Frazierv. Simmons 139 Mass., 581, 535.. 186
Frederick's Appeal 53 Penn St., 338 186
Freeman V. Baldwin. 13 Ala., 246 293
Freeman V. Freeman 17 N. J. Eq., 44 3'i3
Freeman V. Winchester 18 Miss., 577 260
Freeport v. Bartol 3 Greedl., 340 161
French v. Burns 35 Conn., 859 294
French V. Vining 102 Mass., 133 175
Freyman v. Knecht 78 Pa. St., 141 207
Frost V. Johnson. -. 8 Ohio, 393 285
Frostbury Mining Co. v. New England
Glass Co., ..9Cush.,115 156
Xl TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE.
Fry V. Breckinridge 7B. Mon., 31 314
Fry V. Lexington, etc., R. R. Co ^ Mete. (Ky.), 314... 25&
Fryattv. Sullivan, Co 7 Hill, 539 6S
Fryer V. Ranken 11 Sim., 55 273
Fryer V. Roe 12 C B , 437 214
22 Eng. L. & Eq., 440 214
FuUagerv. Reville .3 Hun, 600 289
FuUam v. New York, etc. , Ins. Co. . . .7 Gray, 61 236
Fuller V. Rowe 57 N. Y., 23 264
FuUington V. Goodwin 57 Vt., 641 13
Furgeson V. Davol Mills 7Phia., 253 97
Ferguson V. Miller. 1 Cow., 243 64
Fergusson V. Norman 5 Bing. N. C, 76 179
Gaarv. Hurd 92 III., 315 295
Gadsen V. Lance 1 McMul. Eq., 87.. .1 151
Gale V. Nixon ...6 Cow., 445 317
Gallagher V. Waring 9 Wend., 20, 28 184
GaUup V. Josselyn 7 Vt, 384 66
Galpin v. Page 18 Wall., 350 281
Gannard v. Elslava 29 Ala., 732 128
Gannetv. Tucker 18 Ala., 27 132
Gano V.Hart , Hardin (Ky.), 297... 314
Gardnerv. Buokbee 3 Cow., 130 283
Gardner V. Cleveland 9 Pick., 334 86
Gardiner V. Gardiner 34 N. Y., 155 139
Gardnerv. Joy 9 Met., 177 152
Gardnerv. Merritt 32 Md., 78 126
Gardnerv. McEwen 19 N. Y., 133 147
Gardner V. Printup 3 Barb., 83,89 246
Garforth V. Bradley 2Ves., 675 123
Garvin V. WisweU 83 111., 210 61
Garnett v. Macon 6 Call., 808 288
Gates v.BUss .43 Vt., 299 207
Gates V. Fraser 9 111. App., 634 34
Gates V. Green : 4 Paige, 355 820
Gates V. Madison Co. Mut. Ins. Co 5 N. Y. , 469 233
Gault V. Brown .48 N. H., 183 155
TABLE OF CASES.
xli
PACE.
Gebhardv. Garnier 13 Bush., 331 HO
Gee V. Pritchard 3 Swans., 413 93
Gee V. Young Hayw., 17 15-
Georgev. Concord .45 N. H., 484 _ 274
George V. Green 13N. H., 531 143
Germantown, etc. , R'y Co. v. Fitter. .60 Pa. St. , 134 358
Gheenv. Osborn 17Serg. &R., 171... 333
Gibbon v. Ogden 9 Wheat. ,197, 337, 335, 338 . 120
Gibbons v. United States 8 Wall., 269 203
Gibbsv. Benjamin 45 Vt., 124 156
Gibson V. Carruthers... 8 M. & W., 337 190
Gibson v. Perry.... _ 29 Mo., 245 820
Gifford V. Carvill 29 Cal., 589 183
GifEord V. Ford 5 Vt., 533 398
Gilbert V.N. Y. C. R. R. Co .4 Hun, 378 164
Giles V. Comstock .4N.Y.,370 322
Giffordv. Thorne 9 N. J. Eq. (1 Stock.), 703 244
GUlv. Kauffman ....16 Kan., 571 184
Gill V. Weaver IDev. &.B. (N. C.),Eq.,41. 244
Gillettv. Mason 7 Johns., 16 64
Gillottv. Esterbrook .48 K. Y., 374 99
GiUmanv. Hill 36 N. H.,311, 318.... 155, 157
Gilman V. Andrews 66 Iowa, 116 205
Gilmer V. Gilmer 42 Ala., 9 241
Gilmorev. Supple IIP. C, 551 165
Girardv. Taggart. .5 Serg. &R., 33 303
Gittingsv. Nelson 86 Bl., 591 147
Gladstone V. King 1 Maule & S., 35 ... 234
Gleasonv. Dodd .4 Met, 333 281
Gleasonv. Drew 9 Me., 81. 289
Glenn V. Sample.. 80 Ala., 159 263
Glenn V. WilUams 60 Md., 93 263
Glick V.Crist 37 Ohio St., 388 218
Glover V. Payne 19 Wend., 518 _ 301
Goddardv. Binney 115 Mass., 450 151
Godfrey v. White 60 Mich., 443... 37
Godillott V. Harris 81 N. Y., 263 102
Godst V.Rose 17 C. B., 239 158
35L. J. C. P., 61.... 158
Goff V. Craven 34 Hun, 150 Ill
Xlii TABLE OF OASES.
PAGE,
Gofle V. KiltB 15 Wend., 550 64
Colder v. CockrUL... :A Kan., 259 299
Golden V. Glock 57Wis., 118— 7
Golderv. Ogden 15 Pa. St., 358 164
Goodv. Cheeseman 3 B. &Ad., 704 285
Goodall V. N. E. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.— 5 Frost. (N. H.), 169. 228
Goodallv. Skelton 2 H. Bl., 316 159
Goodman V. Griffiths H. &N.,574... 162
Goodman v. Simonds 20 How., 343.. 60
Ooodnowv. AUen 68 Me., 808. 295
Goodrich V. Jones 2 HiU, 143 20
Goodwin V. Hardy 57 Me., 148 255
Goodyear V. Day 3 Wall. Jr., 388 74, 75
Goram V. Fisher 30 Vt., 438 157
Gordon V. Butler 105 U. S., 553 174
Gordon V. Clapp ...113 Mass., 355 303
Gordon v. London Assurance Co 1 Burr. ,492.. 223
Gordon V. Norris 49 N. H., 376 204
Gorman V. RusseU 18 Cal., 688 47
Gorton Y. Hadsell 9 Cush., 508 21, 22
Gosslerv. Schepeler 5 Daly, 476 192
Gourley V. Thompson. 2 Sneed. (Tenn.), 387 142
Goiirley V. Linsenbigler ...51 Penn. St., 345 131
Gowingv. Knowles.. 118 Mass., 333 145
Graffenstein V. Epstein. 23 Kan., 443... 174
Grafton v. Cummings 99 U. S., 100 162
Graham V. Eoberts ..1 Head, 56, 59 282
Granard v. Dunkin 1 Ball & B., 207 92
Grand Tower Co. v. Phillips .23 Wall. ,471 204
Granger v. Bassett .98 Mass., 463 46
Grantham V. Hawley Hob., 182 15, 148
Gratzv. Redd 4 B. Mon., 178 254
Graves v. Weld 5 B. & Ad., 105 15
Gray v. Baker 17 Mass., 435 21
Gray V. Barton .55 N. Y., 68, 72 136
Gray v. Bennett 3 Met., 523 277
Gray V. Coffin 9 Cush., 193 262
Gray V. Davis ION. Y.,285 157
Gray V.Hall 29 Kan , 704 204
Gray V. Russell 1 Story, 11 89
TABLE OF CASES. xHil
PAGE.
Great Northwestern Ey. Co. v, Ken-
nedy 4Exoh.,417, 435.... 260
Great Falls Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v.
Harvey 45N.H.,293 23a
Greathouse V. Dunlap 3 McLean, 303 287
Greeley V. Waterhouse 19 Me., 9 _ 304, 305
Green V. Armstrong 1 Denio, 550 153
Green V. Kornegay .4 Jones (N. C.),L., 66 127
Green v. Merriam 28 Vt., 801 158
Green way V. Fuller .47Mich.,557 295
Gregory V. Schoenell , 55 Ind., 101... 175
Gregory V. Stryker 2 Den., 638 69
Gridley V. Dorn 57Cal., 78... 225
Grierv. Cowan J^ddis, 347 311
Griffith V. Charlotte, etc., R. E. Co... 23 S. C, 65; 55 Am.
Eep. 1 23
Griffith V. Cowen 13 M. & W., 58 194
Griffith V. Mangam 73N. Y.,611 261
Grignon v. Astor 2 How., 319 279
Grimv. Byrd 33 Gratt., 293 175
Grimes V. Van Fetchen 20 Mich., 410 15ft
Grigsby v. Breckenridge 2 Bush (Ky.), 480, 486 93, 93, 94
Griswell V. Bristowe L. E 3 C. P., 112... 366
Griswold V. Penniman .2 Conn., 564 122
Groat v.Gile... 51 N. Y., 431... 165
Grose v. HUt. 36 Me., 22 262
Gross V. Nugent 5 B. & Ad., 58, 65,66 288
Grosse Isle Hotel Co. v. L'Anson's
Exrs 42N. J. L., 10 258
43 N. J. L., 443 258
Groutv, Hill 4 Gray, 361 191
Grovev. Brien 8How.,439 168
Grover V. Grover 24 Pick., 261 137
Grymes v. Hone 40 N. X., 17, 20 132
Guicev. Crenshaw. 60 Tex., 344 204
Guierv. Pearoe... 2 Browne (Pa.), 35.. 217
Guntherv. Atwell 19 Md., 157 184
Gumey V. Howe.. 9 Gray, 404 197
Guthrie v. Weaver .1 Mo. App., 136 23
Guyther' V. Taylor 3 Ired. (N. C), Eq., 338 244
G win's Estate. ....1 Tuck. Surr., 44 139
xliv
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE.
H.
Hackett V. ManloYe 14 Cal.', 85 299
Hackney V. Vrooman 63 Barb.. 650. _ 126
Hadley V. Russell .40N. H., 109, 113.... 267
Hagar v. Union National Bank 63Me.,509 255
Hahn V. Doolittle 18 Wis., 196 183
Haightv. DelaOour 3 Camp., 319 224
Halev. Hale 4 Humph., 183 217
Halev. Huntley 21 Vt., 147 164
Halev. Omaha Nat. Bank 64 N. Y., 550 303
Halev. Rice 124Mass., 293 219
Hallv. Rellows 11 N. J. Eq., 383.... 298
Hall V. Burrows '. 8 L. T. (N. S.), 227.. 101
9 L. T. (N. S.), 561.. 101
Hallv. Ditson 53 How. Pr., 19 303
Hallv. Durham .109 Ind., 484. 280
H,,Uv. Taylor 47 Conn., 550 187
Hallv. HaU. 18Ga.,40 138
Hall V. Hamlin ..3 Watts (Pa.), 354... 281
Hallv. Hill ..IDru. &War., 94, 111-133. 249
Hallv. MuUin 5 Har. & J., 190, 193 180
Hallv. Rose Hill, etc., Co 6 Ohio St., 489 255
Hallv. Snowhill 14 N. J. L., 8 297
Hall V. United States Ins. Co 5 Gill fiVid.), 484 265
Hallv. WOes 3 Blatchf., 194r-200.. 73
Hall V. Williams. 6 Pick., 333 281
Hallenv. Runder 16 M. & R., 267 154
HaUock V. Com. Ins. Co 3 Dutch. (N. J.), 268. 227, 228
3 Dutch. (N. J.), 645. 227, 238
HalloweU V. Skinner .4Ired. (N. C.) L., 165 138
Halsenv. Lockwood 37 Conn., 500 21
Hamaker v. Blanohard 90 Pa. St., 377 59
35 Am. Rep., 664 59
Hamilton V. Jiitchell 6 Blackf., 131 297
Hamilton Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hobart 2 Gray, 543 238
Hammell v. Thurmond 17 Ark., 203. 383
Hammersv. Dole.... 61 111., 207.. 303
Hammet v. Linneman .48 N. Y., 399 166
Handson V. Porter 13 Conn., 59 17
Hanley V. Donaghue 116 U. S., 1 281
TABLE OF CASES. xlv
PAGE.
Hanna V.Flint 14 Cal., 73 39
Hansmanv. Nye 63 Ind., 485 156
Hanson V. Buckner .4 Dana, 251 127, 180
Hanson V. Edgerton J39K H., 357.. 175
Hansonv. Myer... .6 East, 614 164, 168
Hoginsv. Plympton 11 i'ick., 99 183
Harbaughv. Kohn .52 Ind., 243 , 283
HardeU V. McClure 1 Chandl.,271 151
Harev. Pearson 4 Ired. (N. C.) L., 76. 18
Harknessv. Eraser 12 Fla., 836 173
Harlow V. EUis. 15 Gray, 229 166
Harmon V. Eeeve 18 0. B., 586 155
25L. J. C. P., 257... 155
Harper V.Hampton 1 Harr. & J.,673 2S6
Harper V. MoWhorter _18 Ala., 229 123
HarreUv. MlUer 35 Miss., 700 153
Harriman V. Harriman _'.13 Gray, 341 286
Harris V. Cornell 80 111., 54 282
Harris v. Eagle Ins. Co 5 Johns., 868 224
Harris V. Harris 23 Gratt., 737 287
Harris V. Howard .56 Vt., 695 218
Harrisv. McGovem 99 U.S., 161 214
Harris V. Nicholas :.5Manf.,483 147
Harris v. Pratt 17 N. Y., 249 193
Harrisv. Shipway -Bull. N. P., 183 312
Harris v. York Mut. Ins. Co 50 Pa. St., 341 230
Harris Mfg. Co. v. Marsh 49 Iowa, 11 303
Harrison V. Bamsby 5 Tenn. R., 346 313
Harrison V. Vines 46 Tex., 15, 21 254
Hartv. Burton 7 J. J. Marsh., 333.. 293
Hartv. Jewett '. 11 Iowa, 376 382,290
Hart V. Pendergast ...14M. & W., 746 216
Hartford, etc., B. E. Co. v. Boorman.l3 Conn., 530 265
Hartmanv. Ogborn .54 Pa. St., 130 280
Hartman v. Strickler 83 Va., 225 139
Hartshorne v. Watson 5 Scott; 506_ 318
Hartwell v. Bissell 17 Johns., 128 18
Hasbrouckv. Lounsberry 26N. Y.,598 166
Haskell V. McHenry ..4 Cal., 411 302
Hastiev. Couturier 9 Ex., 102.. 147
5H. L. C, 678 147
xlvi
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE.
Hastings v. Drew 76 N. Y., 9 254
Hastings v. Lovering 3 Pick., 215 184
Hatch V. Atkinson 56 Me., 323 133, 134
Hatch v.Cana 101 U. S., 305 263
Hatch V. Oil Co 100 U.S., 131 165
Hathway V. Brayman .43 N. Y., 333. 397
Hathway v. Moran 44 Me., 67 180'
Hathomv. King 8 Mass., 371 138
Havens v.- Havens 1 Sandf. Ch., 334 348
Hawkins v. Everett 5 Jones (N. C), Eq., 45 246
Hawley V. Upton 103 U. S., 314 356
Haydenv. Demets 53N. Y.,436 20»
Haysv. Sulsor 1 Fish., 533 76
Hazard V. Day 14 Allen, 494 161
Hazlebakerv. Reeves 13 Pa. St., 364 317
Hazletonv. Allen 3 Allen, 114 117
Hazzardv. Irwin 18 Pick., 95, 106 287
Hazzardv. Loring 10 Gush., 267 394
Head V.Goodwin .37 Me., 183 147
Headley V. Goundray .41 Barb., 383 300
Healy V. Spence 8Exch., 668 386
Heart V. State Bank .3 Dev. Eq., Ill 357
Heath V. Barmore 50 N. Y., 303 268
Heath V. Williams 30 Ind., 495 294, 301
Hederich V. Smith 103 Ind., 208 13
Heeney V. St. Peter's Ch 2 Edw. Ch., 608 23
Hegan V. Johnson .2 Taunt., 148 . 312
Hegeman v. McArthur 1 E. D. Smith, 147 .. 331
Hegeman & Co. V. Hegeman 8 Daly, 1 101
Henklev. Dillon 15 Ore., 610 13
Henkle v. Salem Mfg. Co 39 Ohio St., 547 367
Henenquin v. Naylor 24 N. Y., 139 178
Henry V. Jackson. .37 Vt., 431 48
Henry v. Vermillion, etc., Turnpike
Co 17 Ohio, 187 261
Henshaw v. Foster ...9 Pick., 312 140'
Hensloe's Case 9 Rep., 37, 38 115
Hepburn V. SeweU 5 Har. & J., 211 Ill, 291
Herryfordv. Davis ..103U. S., 335 29&
Hershfieldv. Claflin 35 Kan., 166 _. 41
TABLE OF OASES. xlvii
PAGE.
HessT. "Werts 4Serg. &E., 356 47
Hewes V. Jordan. 39 Md., 473 156
Heylandv. Badger 35Cal.,404 209
Hiatttv. Griswold 5 Fed. Rep., 573 267
Hickman V. Shimp 109 Pa. St., 16 181
Hickokv. Buck.. 33 Vt., 149 211
Hicks V. Cleveland... 48 N. Y., 84 159
Hier v. Abraham 83 N. Y., 519 97
Higgins V. Kasterer ..4 Mich , 318 7
Higginsv. Murray 73 N. Y., 353 203
Higgins V. Scott 3 B. & Ad., 413 S18
Higham V. Harris '. 108 Ind., 346 289
Hightv. Sackett 34 N. Y., 447, 451... 210
Hightv. Ripley 19 Me., 137 151
Hightower v. Thornton 8 Ga., 486, 500.... 253, 358, 361
Hillv. Chapman 59 Wis., 211 204
Hillv. Hollister 1 Wilson, 139 336
Hillv. Kidd ...43 Cal.. 615 235
Hillv. Smith... .33Vt.,433 205
Hill v. Snell 104 Mass., 173 60
Hillv. Wentworth 38Vt.,428 13
Hinde v.'Whitehouse 7 East, 558 161, 163
Hinnemanv. Rosenback 39 N. Y., 98 275
Hitchingsv. Pettengill .58 N. H., 3 174
Hoadleyv. House 33 Vt., 179 207
Hoadley V. McLaine ...10 Bing., 482, 487... 145, 149
Hobart v. Littlefield 13 R. I., 341 166
Hobbs V. Francis 19 How. Pr. Rep. , 567. 101
Hocker V. Gentry 3 Mete. (Ky.;, 463... 246
Hodge V. Macauley 25 Vt.,316 218
Hodgesv. Green. 1 JJ8 Vt., 358 31
Hodges V. Richmond Mfg. Co 9R.I.,483 155
Hodgesv. Tenn. M. & F., Ins. C0....8N. Y., 416 394
Hodgson V. Barrett 33 Ohio St., 63 196
Hodsdenv. Lloyd 2 Br. Cr. Cas., 534... 141
Hogg V. Emmerson 6 How., 437 78
Hogins V. Plympton .11 Pick., 97 1&4
HofEman v. Carow .22 Wend., 385 60. K»
Holbrook v. Chamberlin 116 Mass., 155 la
Holderness V, Shackles 8 B. &. C, 613 38
xlviii
TABLE OF CASES.
PA<.
Holf ord V. "Wood 4Ve3., 76 243
Holland v. Lyns 56 Ga., 56 197
Holland v.Eea.. 48 Mich., 310 JjOl
Holland V. Trotter ^3 Gratt., 136 283
Hollister V. Abbott 31 N. H., 443 383
31N.H., 443 290
Hollzapffelv. Baker 18Ves.,415 S30
Holmanv. Lock. .51 Ala., 387 295
Holmes v. Gharlestown Mut. Fire Ins.
Co lOMet, 311 234
Hblmeav. Higgins IB. & C, 74 47
Holmes V. MitcheU 7 C. B N. S., 361... 163
Holroydv. MarshaU 10 H. L. 0., 191 148
Holt V. Jolinson 14 Johns., 435 _ 315
Homerv. Perkins 124 Mass., 481 174
Hone V. Mut. Safety Ins. Co .1 Sandf . , 137 223
Hooper v. Hudson Eiver Ins. Co 17 N. Y., 424, 426... 231
Hoover V. Peters 13 Mich., 51 185
Hope V. Eddington Lalor, 43 321
Hope V. Hutchins .9 Gill & J. (Md,), 77_ 128
Hopkins v. Tanqueray 15 C. B., 130 183
33 L J. C. P., 163... 182
Hopson V. Fountain 5 Humph. (Tenn.), 140. 373
Hopwood V. Hopwood 7 H. L. Cas., 728 248
Hornev. Home 9 Ired. (N. C.)L., 99. 138 ■
Horner V. Carter 11 Fed. Eep., 363.._ 269
Horav. Baker 8 CaJ., 603 165
Hortonv. Bufflngton 105 Mass., 399 180
Hostetter v. Adams 30 Blatchf . C. C. , 826 97, 99
Hotchkissv. Greenwood. 11 How., 248 74
Hotham v. East India Co 1 Doug., 273, 377 180
Honbottle V. Kinney. 53N.Y. Super. Ct., 41. 99
Hountz V. Kirkpatrick ..73 Pa. St., 376 149
House V. Grant... .4Lans., 396 133
Housemirev. Moulton ..15 Ind., 367 282
Houston V. Moore 5 Wheat. , 34, 49, 52, 54. . 120
Hovey V. Henry Law J., 153 77
How V. Gunn .33 Beav., 463 93
Howard V. Albany Ins. Co .3 Denio, 301 330
Howard V. Coke ...-7B. Mon. (Ky.), 655. 138
TABLE OF CASES. xllX
PAGE.
Howard V.Daly 61N. Y.,362 146
Howaxdv. DoolitUe ..3 Duer, 464 330
Howard v. Emerson 110 Mass., 321 185
Howard V. Fessenden 14 Allen, 134 154
Howard V. First Parish ....7 Pick., 138 33
Howard V. Gunn '....33 Beav., 463 93
Howard V. Harris ...8 Allen, 297 143
Howard V. Hoey 33 Wend., 350 184
Howard V. Rawsay, .7 Harr. & J., 130 315
Howe V. Batchelder -49 N. H., 304, 319... 16, 153
Howe V. Hayward 108 Mass., 54... 159
Howev. Howe. IN. H.,'49 818
Howe V. Starkweather. ...17 B^ass., 340 46
■Howev. Stevens 47Vt.,363 21
HoweU V. Schenck 4 Gabe, 89 16
HoweU V. Young 5 B. & C, 359 214
Howes V. Bigelow .13 Mass., 384 133
Rowland v. Coflln 12 Pick., 135 817
Hoxiev. Chaney 143 Mass., 593 101
58 Am. Rep, 149 101
Hoyden v. Green 56 Iowa, 733 287
Hoytv. Hartford Ins. Co. 26 Hun, 416 168
Hoyt V. Mackenzie 3 Barb., Ch , 320 93
Hubbard v. Hubbard 8 N. Y., 196 139
Hubbard V. Howell.. j 51 Conn., 433 305
Huddersfield Canal Co. v. Buckley.. .7 T. R., 36 265
Hudson V. Weir 39 Ala., 394 153
Huffv.'Hii-es ..39 N. J. L., 4 164
Huff V. McCauley 53 Pa. St., 306 153
Hughes V. AntietamMfg. Co 34 Md., 316 259
Hughes V. Edwards ..9 Wheat., 500 300
Hughes V. Sheafl 19 Iowa, 335 301
Hughes V. Vermont Cop. Mining C0...73 N. Y., 307, 210... 254
Hull V. Camley 3 Duer, 99. 399
HuUv, Fields ^ 76 Va., 591 _ 175
Humble V. Oliver Cro. Eliz., 338 817
Humphreys v. Comline 8 Blatchf., 516 185
HumphreysviUe, etc., Co. v. Vermont,
etc., Co 33Vt.,93 205
Humphries V. Humphries 3 Ired., 363 17
D
1 TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE.
Hungate V. Reynolds 72 El., 435 303
Huntv. Bates 7 E. I., 217 Ill
Hunt V. Cope Cowper, 343 331
Huntv. Hetcht .8 Ex., 814. 157
Huntv. Hecht 22L. J. Ex., 293 157
Huntv. Hunt 73 N. Y., 217, 340... 281,283
Hunter v. Blain Ji Bailey, 168 313
Hunter V. Bosworth .43 Wis., 583 148
Hunter v. Looonte .6 Cow., 738 313
Hunter v. WetseU 17 Hun, 135 159, 160-
Hunter v. "Westell 84 N. Y., 594 187
38 Am. Rep., 544.... 187
Hunter v. Wetsel. 84 N. Y., 544 160
Huntington V. Hall 36 Me., 501.. 183
Huntley V. Whittier 105 Mass., 391 197
Hunton V. Nichols .55 Tex., 317 314
Hurdv. Cook .75N.Y.,454 165
Hurd v. West 7 Cow., 752 311
Hurford v. Harned 6 Oreg., 363 394
HurfiE V. Hires 39 N. J. L., 581 168
Hurlburtv. Hurlbut 1.. 49 Hun, 189 136
Hurry v. The John and Alice 1 Wash., 393 305
Huwer v. Dannonhoflfer 83 N. Y., 499, 503.. 99, 101, 103
Hutchins V. Masterson.: 46 Tex., 551 13
Hutchingsv. Miner .46 N. Y., 456 136-
Hutchinson V. Dubois 45 Mich., 143 41
Hutchinson V. Hunter 7 Pa. St., 140 164, 168
Hutchinson V. Scott .3Mees& W., 809... 314
Hutzler v. Lord .64 Md., 534 266
Huxley V.King :40 Mich., 73 283
Hyatt eiai. v. Allen .56N. Y., 553 46
Hyde v. Cookson ...21 Barb., 93 70
Hyde V.Stone .9 Cow., 230 36, 133
Ide V. Stanton 15 Vt., 685 161, 163
15Vt., 685 150
Idleyv. Bowen 11 Wend., 335 141
Idol V. Jones 3 Dev. (N. C.) L., 163. 64
TABLE OF CASES, fl
Ilesv. Cox 83Ind.,577 287
Ilsley V. Stubbs _9 Mass , 65, 71 193
Indianapolis, etc. , R. R. Co. v. Maguire.62 Ind. , 140 204
Ingv.Brow-n 3 Md. Ch., 531 293
InPye, exparte 18 Ves., 140, 153 248
In re Dyer 1 Hagg., 219 140
In re Lewes' Trusts Law Rep. 11 Eq!, 336 345
JjirePoweU 5 Jur.,N. S..331.... 273
JnrePratt 10 U S. Pat. Gaz., 866 100
Instone v. Frankford Bridge Co 2 Bibb. ,576 260
Insurance Co. v. Chase 5 Wall., 509 333
Insurance Co. v. Connor 17 Pa. St., 136 338
Irish V. Nutting .47 Barb., 370 136,131,133
Iron Cliffs Co. V. Buhl 43 Mich., 86 168
Irvine V. Stone - ..6 Cush., 508 155
Jack V. Smith 1 Bay, 315 313
Jackson V. Covert 5 Wend., 139 _ 150
Jackson V. Eddy - 12 Mo., 209 321
Jackson V. Housel ...17 Johns., 281, 283.. 1
Jackson v. Johnson 5 Cow., 74 215
Jackson V. Sheldon 6 Cow., 103 313
Jackson V. Smith 1 Bay, 315 311
Jackson V. Stackhouse 1 Cow., 132 287, 288
Jkckson V. Twenty-third St. R. Co.. ..88 N, Y., 520, 526... 136
Jackson V. Watts 1 McCord, 388 159
Jackson V. Wheat ._. 18 Johns., 40 315
Jackson's Adm'rs v. Newark Plank
Road Co 31N. J. Law, 277... 355
James V. Bocage 45 Ark., 384 183
James V. Muir 33 Mich., 324 149
James v. Parry 35 Albany L. J., 12.. 100
55 L. T. Rep., N. S., 415 100
James v. Woodruff 10 Paige, 541 268
2 Denio, 574 48
Jarrold v. Houlston 3 Kay & J., 708 89
Jefferysv. Boosey .4 H. L. C, 962 84,
Jeffries v. Great Western R. R. Co..-.34 Eng. L. & Eq., 122 59
Hi TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE.
JefiEerys V. Jeflferys Craig&P., 138 287
24L.T. Rep., N. S., 177 268
Jelksv. Barrett 5BMiss., 315 161
Jenkins v. Fowler 63 N. H., 244 272
Jenkins V. Norton ....SB. Mon. (Ky.), 28.. 318
Jenkins V. Powell 2 Vern., 115 248
Jenkyns V. Usbome 7 M, & G., 678, 698.. 193
8 Scott, N. R., 505... 192
Jenness V. Wendell 51 N. H., 63, 67 155
Tennings v. Chenango Co. Mut. Ins.
Co.. .2 Denio, 75 232
Jennings V. Ins. Co. of Pa 4Binn.,244. 304
Jewett V. Smith _12Mass., 809 115
Jones V. Barkley 2 Doug., 684-691 181
Jones V. Creveling Harr. N. J., 127 243
Jones V. Davis ..35 Ohio St., 474, 477. 254
Jones V. Emery 40N. H.,348. 172
Jonesv. Flint _10 A. &E.,755 154
Jones V.Jones 91 Ind., 378.. 214
Jonesv. Mechanics' Bank 39 Md., 287 156
Jonesv. RimmtT 14 Ch. D., 588, 593.. 174
Jonesv. Savage - 6 Wend., 658 195
Jonesv. Selby Free. Ch., 300 134
Jonesv. Thomas 8Blackf.,428 16, 17
Jonesv. Towne 58 N. H., 462 22
Johnson V. Buck.. 35 N. J. L., 339 161
Johnson v. Crawfordsville R. R. do.. .11 Ind., 258 258
Johnson V. Dodgson _3 M, & W., 656 156
Johnson V. Hunt 11 Wend., 135 66
Johnson V. Jefries 30 Mo., 423 299
Johnson V. Johnson 30111., 215 279
Johnson V. Root _2Fish., 291 76
Johnson V. Shippin 2 Ld. Raym., 984 806
Johnson V. Underhill 52 N. T., 203 266
Johnson V. Willis 7 Gray, 164 198
Johnston V. Marinus 18 Abb. N. C, 72j... 24
Jordan V. James. 5 Ohio, 88 191
Jordan V. Morton 4M&W., 155 145
Joy V. Schloss 12 Daly, 533 151
Joyce V. A.dams 8 N. Y., 291 164
TABLE OF CASES.
liii
PAGE.
Joyce V. Murphy 8N.Y.,291 143
Joyce V. Swaee _ 17 C. B. (N. S.), 84, 101. 145
Judsonv. Cope 1 Fish., 615 76
Junction, etc., R. R. Co. v. Reve 15 Ind., 236 256
Jurgenson v. Alexander _24 How. Pr. R., 269. 104
Justice V. Lang 43N.Y.,493 163
K.
Kansas City Hotel Co. v. Hunt 57 Mo., 126 256
Ease V.John .10 Watts, 107. .1 207
Kayv. Waghom 1 Taunt., 428 _ 286
Keanv. Johnson 9 N. J. Eq., 40i: 270
Kearney V. McComb ^...16N. J. Eq., 189 801
Keeler V. Salisbury 33 N. Y., 648 _ 286
Keene v. Kimball 16 Gray, 548 90
Keflferv. Grayson _76 Va., 517 _ 287
Keiete v. Myer 61 Md., 558 163
Keilerv. Tutt 31 Mo., 301 143
KeUv. Charmer 23 Beav.. 195 140
Kelley v. Mariposa, etc., Co .4 Hun, 632 271
Kellogg V. Dickinson 18 Vt., 266 22
KeUogg V. Stockwell 75 111., 68 866
KeUogg V. Witherhead 4 Hun, 273 _ 151
Kelly V. Mize 3 Sneed (Tenn.), 59.. 290
Kelly V. Thompson 7 Watts, 401 801
Kempv. Falk .7 App. Cas., 573, 581. 191
Kenebelv. Scrafton 2 Bast, 530 141
Kentv. Ginten 23 Ind., 1 206
Kent V. Huskinson _3 B. & P., 233.. 157
Kentucky Mut. Co v. Jenks 5 Ind., 96 228
Kenworthy v. Scofield 2 B. &. C, 945 162
Kerley v. Clay .—A Bibb., 241 87
Kemeyer V. Newbt 14 Kan., 164 196
Kerrv. Condy .9 Bush. (Ky.), 372... 281
Kerrv. Kerr 41N.Y.,272 281
Kesler V. McConachy 1 Rawle, 335 815, 322
Ketchum v. Buffalo 14 N. Y., 356 45
Keyling's Case. 1 Eq. Cas. Abr., 239, pi., 25. 250
Kibble v. Gough 38 L. T. (N. S.), 204. 157
liv TABLE OF OASES.
PAGE.
Kidder v, Kidder 33 Pa. St., 268 287
KimbaUv. ^tna Ins. Lo 9 AUeii,540 233
Kimball V. Rowley.... 24Piok.,347. 21
Kimball V. Vorman 25 Mich., 310 207
Kimberly V. P^tchin 19N.Y., 330 165, 168
Kinoaid's Appeal 66 Pa. St., 411 22, 23
Kingv. Earbury Fort., 37 107
King V. Jarman 35 Ark., 190 158
Kingv. Patterson, etc., R'y Co 29 N. J. Law, 404... 255
King V. Strong 9 Paige, 105 244
Kingman V. Spurr 7 Pick., 235.. 48
Kingsbury v. Collins. 4 Bingh., 209 15
Kingsfordv. Meny 11 Ex., 577 177
25 L. J. Ex., 166 177
Kingsley V. Holbrook.. .45 N. H., 313, 319... 16, 153
Kingsley V. N. E. Mut.*Fii-e Ins. Co. .8 Cush., 393 232
Kinna V. Smith 2 Green., Ch. 14 300
Kinnev. Johnson .60 Barb., 69 139
Kinne V. Kinne 9 Conn., 102 138
Kinnebrew V. Kinnebrew 35 Ala., 628. 287
Kinsey V. Bailey 9 Hun, 420 296
Kirby V. Johnson 23 Mo., 334 158
Kirk V. Edows 3 Hare, 509 249
Kistler V. Hereth 75Ind., 177 214
Kittredgev. Woods 3 N. H., 503 15
Klein V. Seibold 89 m., 540 60
Kleinworthv. Marrittinia 2 App. Cas., 156 305
Klock V. Walter 70111., 416 294
Knapp V. Winchester 11 Vt., 351.. 59
Kneass v. The Schuylkill Bank .4 Wash., 9, 11 73, 80
Knight V. Bennett 3 Bing., 361 312
Knight V. Mann ...118 Mass., 443 158
Knight V. Wall ...Dev. & B. (N. C.) L., 125 246
Knott V. Morgan 3 Keen, 213 104
Knowles V. Gas Light Co 19 Wall., 58 281
Knoxv. Campbell .1 Pa. St., 366 35
Kohl r. Lindley _39 111., 195 186
Kohl V. United States 91 U. S Kep. 367.... 4
Kohne v. Ins. Co. of North America. .1 Wash. (U. S. C. C),
93 227
TABLE OF CASES.
Iv
PAGE.
Kraft V. Hurtz 11 Mo., 109 186
Krebsv. Carlisle Bank 3 Wall. (C. C), 33... 268
Kribsv. Jones 44Md., 396 204
Krohnv, Bautz 68Ind.,277 159
Krulder V. EUison 47 N. Y., 36 169
L.
Lackey V. Stouder .3 Ind., 376 188
Lacy V. Kinnaston .3 Salk., 298 288
Ladd V. Thomas 12 Ad. & EL, 117 ... 318
LaGrangev. Ward 11 Ohio, 257 282
Lagrange V. Ward 11 Ohio, 257 290
Laidleyv. Bright 17W. Va.,779 284
Lambv. Crafts 13 Met.. 358. 152
Lamore V. Frisbie .43Mich., 186 198
Lamott V. Stenett 1 Harr. & J., 43 330
Lamphere v. Lowe 3 Neb., 131, 134 295
Landon V. Emmons 97 Mass., 37 298
Landreth v. Landreth 23 Fed. Rap., 41 101
Lane County -v. Oregon 7 Wall., 71 275
Lanev. Gluckauf 28 CaL, 288 275
Lane v. King ..8 Wend., 584 16, 17
Lanm'an v. Lebanon Valley R. E. Co..30 Pa. St. , 43 270
Larrabee v. Baldwin 35 CaL, 155, 168 110
Lash V. Hague 1 Web. Pat. Cas., 207. 71
LasseUv. Eeed 6GreenL,322 20
Latham v. United States 1 Court CI. , 149 274
Lauferty V. Wheeler. 11 Abb. N. C, 238... 263
Laughton v. Atkins ...1 Pick., 435 141
Laughlinv. Ross 45N. Y.,7;3 13
" Law of Burial " 4 Bradf. Surr. E.,
403-533_ 33
Lawrence V. Dana 2 Am. T. R. N. S., 433. 89
3 Am. L. T. E. N. S.,402. 89
Lawrence v. French .35 Wend., 443 331
Lawrencev. Hopkins 13 Johns., 288 218
Lawrence Manuf. Co. v. Lowell
Hosiery Mills S7 Am. Rep., 362 97
129 Mass., 325 97
Ivi TABLE OF OASES.
PA(?B.
Lawrence V. Wright 23 Pick., 128 115
Lawrence Co. v. Lowell Mills 129 Mass. ,325 99
Lawson v. Lawson 1 P. Wms., 441 130
Leake V. Robinson ^Mer.,863, 893 244
Leev. Biddis 1 Ball., 175 272
Leev. Blendy 2 Fish., 89 81
Leev. Kilbum 1 3 Gray, 594 117
Lee V. Mahoney 9 Iowa, 344 161
Legal Tender Cases 12 Wall., 457 275
Leggv. Legg 8 Mass., 99 122
Leggett V. Hyde 58 N. Y., 272 89
Leidersdorf V. Flint 8 Biss. C. C, 827 98
Leigh V. Savidge 14 N. J. Eq., 124.... 142
Leland v. Medoral 2 Woodf. & M., 92, 105. 307
Lelandv. Sprague 28Vt., 746 295
Leland v. The Ship Medora ...2 Woodf. & M., 92.. 804
Leonard V. Pitney 5 Wend., 80 214
Leonard V. Scarborough 2 Ga., 73 86
Lepage V. McNamara 5 Iowa, 124 136
LeRoy v. Globe. Ins. Co 2 Edw. Oh., 657 46
Lernedv. Wannemacher 9 Allen, 412 161
Lesterv. East 49 Ind., 588 144, 165
Letcher V. Norton 5 111., 575 299
Lewis V. Greider .49 Barb., 606 201
Lewis V. Jonesf. ...5 Harris, 226... 20
Lewis V. Rogers 16 Pa. St., 18 280, 281
Lewis V. Rosier 1 6 West Va. Rep., 833 7
Lightburn V. Cooper 1 Dana, 278 207
Lilliewhite V. Devereaux 15 M. &W., 285 158
LilUev. Dunbar 63 Wis., 198 153
Lincon v. Erie Preserving Co 182 Mass. ,129 163
Lincoln v. Tower 2 McLean, 473 281
Linderman v. Ingham 36 Ohio St., 1, 9 297
Linden V. Eldren 49Wis., 305 201
Lindencau v. Desborough 3 Man & Ry. ,45 283
Lindsay v. Winona & St. Peter R. R-48 Am. Rep., 228 66
29 Minn., 411 _ 66
Linghamv. Eggleston 27 Mich., 334 _ 164
Linnv. Minor .4 Nev., 462 _ 275
Linsellv. Bonsor 2 Bing. N. C, 241 218
TABLE OF CASES. Ivii
PAGE.
Linton V. Hart 25 Pa. St., 193 333
Linton V. Porter 31 III., 107 183
Lister v. Hodgson Law Rep. , 4 Eq. , 30, 36. 287
Little V. Gould Blatchf., 165, 363.._ 87
Livermorev. White .74 Me., 456.: _ 59
Lobley V. Stocks- 19 Beav., 392 248
Lockv. Wilson 9 Heisk., 784 218
lOHeisk.,441 218
Lockhart v. Van Alstyne 31 Mich., 76 254
Logan V. La Mesurier 6 Moore, P. C, 116.. 164
Loganv. Plummer 70 N. C, 388 287
Longv. Milar 4C. P. D.,450; C. A., 163
Long V.White 43 Ohio St., 59 154
Long Dock Co. v. Mallory _12 N. J. Eq., 93...... 303
Loomisv. Deicker ...1 Daly, 186 217
Lord Southampton v. Brown 6 Bam. & C, 718 318
Loring V. Bacon 4 Mass., 575 36
Lothropv. Stedman 13 Blatchf., 134 269
Louisiana V. Mayor 109 TJ, S., 285 110
Love V. Blair 73 Ind.. 381 294
Lowberv. Connit 36 Wis., 176 163
Lowell V. Lewis 1 Mass., 183 74, 75
Lowndes V. Anderson 13 East, y 130 60
Lowndes V. Stamford 18Q. B., 435 237
Lowrey V. Craig-- .30 Miss., 19 132
Lowreyv. Mechaffey • 10 Watts, 387-. 163
Loydv. Wight. ...^ 20Ga.,578 156
Lucas V. Dorrien 7 Taunt., 378 '._ 158
Lucas V. Jefferson Ins. Co 6 Cow., 635 223
Lucena v. Crawford 3 New Rep., 301 229
2 Bos. & Pul., N. E.,
300 221
Lucyv. Bundy j 9N. H., 278 289
Ljidlam's Estate 1 Harris, 188 241
Ludwell v. Newman 6Tenn., 458.. 331
Lukens V. Freiund .37 Kan., 664 185
Lum V. Robertson 6 Wall.. 277 269
Lunn V, Thornton 10. B., 379. 147
Lycoming, etc. , Ins. Co. v. Updegraff-40 Pa. St. , 311 235
Lyman V. Robinson 14 Allen, 243, 354... , 236
Iviii TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE.
Lynch V. DalzeU .3Bro. P. C, 493 231
Lynde V. Eowe 13 Allen, 101 17
M.
Maberlyv. Sheppard lOBing.,99 157
Macauleyv. Eobinson 18 La. An., 619 261
Maotierv. Frith 6 Wend., 103. 146
Mack V. Mack 3 Hun, 333 ]29
Mageev. Billingsley 3 Ala., 679 207
Maguire V. Park 140 Mass., 31 13
Maher v. Eiley ...17 Cal., 415 205
Mahoney V. Bland 14Ind., 176 133
Malone v. Mooring .40 Miss., 347 241
Mamma V. The Potomac Co 8 Peters, 381, 286 268
Manv. Man .3Str.,905 246
MandeU v. Buttles 31 Minn., 391. 307
TVIanhattan Medicine Co. v. Wood .... 108 U. S. , 318 101
Mannv. Cook 30 Conn., 178 360
Manning v.Gasharie.. .27Ind.,399 49
Manning V. Mitcherson 47 Am. Eep.,764 64
69 Ga., 447 _ 64
Manning y. Thessinger 3 Myhie & K., 29 243
Manny V. Jagger 1 Blatchf., 373 74,75
Manyv. Sizer 1 Fish., 17 76
"March V. Freeman_ ..3 Lev., 883 318
Marine Bank v. Wright ...48 N. Y., 1 166
Marks v.Eyan. 63 Cal., 107 13
Jffiarquand v. N. Y. Manuf . Co 17 Johns. ,535 48
Marriot v. Thompson Willes, 186, 189 384
Marsh V. Burroughs 1 Wood, 463 256,263
Marsh V. Puller 18 N. H., 360 136
March V. Pier 4 Eawle, 373 Ill
Marsh V. Eouse..L 14 N. Y., 643 158
Marsh V. Webber 13 Minn., 109 183
HarshaUv. Crow's Adm'r... 39 Ala., 378 37
JUarshaUv. Ferguson. 33 Cal , 65 154
Marshall v. Green 1 C. P. D., 35 153
Marshall v. Jamison 43 Up. Can. Q. B. , 130 146
Marstonv. Marston 1 Fost., 491 123
TABLE OF CASES.
lix
PAGE.
Martin V. Adams 104 Mass., 263 143-
Martin V. Berry 2 Bankr. Reg , 629.. 121
Martin V. Berry 37 Cal., 208 121
Martin V. Broach.... 6Ga..21 318
Martin V. Hunter 1 Wheat., 304 390
Martin V. Thompson .68 Cal., 618 66
45Am.Bep., 668.... 66-
Martineauv. Kitching L. E., 7Q. B.,436... 164
Martinettiv. Maguire 1 Deady, 216 90
Martrickv. Linfield 31 Pick., 335 138-
Marvin V. Treat 37 Conn., 96 61
Marxv.Davis ..56 Miss., 745 303
Maryland v. Railroad Co 33 Wall., 105 275
Mason V. Dicker .72 N. Y., 598 16a
Mason v. ConneU lWhart.,381 48-
Mason V. Decker 73 N. Y., 595, 599... 301,203
Mason V. Hackett .4Nev., 420 39-
Mason V. Lothrop 7 Gray, 855 143
Mason V. Moyers.. 3 Rob. (Va.), 606 15
Masters V. Masters 1 P. Wms., 434...... 243
Masterton v Mayor of Brooklyn .7 Hill, 62 205
Mathews V. Durgee 17 Abb. Pr., 356...., 282'
vatter of the Empire Bank 18N. Y.,199 367
Matter of Forman _54Barb., 374 141
Matter of Long Island E. E. Co 19 Wend., 37 360'
33 Am. Dec. ,439 260
Matter of Swezy ..62 How., 315 101,102
Matterson V. Holt .45 Vt.,386. 289
Matthews V. Albert 24 Md., 537 267
Matthews V. Dare 30 Md., 348 _ 19&
Matthews v. Skates 1 Fish., 603 _ 76'
Matthewsonv. Stockdale 13 Ves., 370 89
Maxwell V. Brown.. 39 Me., 98 156
Maxwell V.Lee 27 N. W. Eep., 196.. 184
MaxweUv. McGee 13Cush., 137 376
Mayv. Estin 2 Post., 414, 433 293
May V.Ward 134 Mass., 127 152, 163
Mayfleld v. Wadsley 3 B. &G., 357 154
Mayor of Berwick v. Oswald 1 El. & B., 395 386
Mayor of N. Y. v. Colgate 3 Duer, 1 318
13N. Y., 140 818
Ix
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE.
Mayov. Fletcher 14 Pick., 525 17
Mayrauntv. Davis 1 Desaus., 203 242
McAvoy V. Medina 11 Allen, 548 60
McCaffrey V. "Woodin 65N. Y.,459 148
McCallv. Lenox 9 Serg. &E.,303.... 16, 17
McCallav. Bullock 2 Bibb., 308 295
McCartee v. Orph. Asy. See _9 Cow., 437 45
McCarty v. Blevina. .5 Yefg., 195 148
McChing V. Kelley 31 Iowa, 508 184
McClintook v. Graham 3 McCord (S. C), 553 12
McClintock's Appeal .71 Pa. St. , 365 153
McCombs V. McKennan 2 Watts & S., 219 202
McConnell V. People .84111., 583 803
McCord V. Ohio & Miss. R. R. Co 13 Ind., 220 257
McCormick V. Seymour .16 How., 480 77
2Blatchf.,240 77
19 How., 96 77
McCormick V. Talcott .20 How., 409 78
McCounv.TheN. Y. 0. &.H.R.R. Co-50 N. Y., 176 110
McCullochv. Maryland 4 Wheat., 316,424... 43
McCurdyv. Myers.. .44 Pa. St., 535 .. 271
McCurtie V. Stevens 13 Wend., 527 287
McEUery v. Flanagan 1 Har. & G., 308 833
McElroy V. Buck 35Mich.,434. 163
McElroyv. Leery _61 Md., 397 163
McElroy v. Lerey ..61 Md., 389 191
48 Am. Rep., 110 191
McBwen v. Morey 60 Bl., 33 149
McFarlandv. Newman 9 Watts, 55 183
McGuire V. Brannan ^27 Cal., 358 _ 297
Mclntyre V. Kennedy 29 Pa. St., 448 196
Mclntyre v. Preston 5 Gilm. (111.), 48 239
Mclver V. Estabrook 134 Mass., 550 18
McKenney V. Haines 63 Me., 74 205
McKenzie v. Kittridge 24 U. C. C. P., 1 265
MoKeonv. Whitney 3Denio,452 '.., 317
TMcKinley v. MiUer 19 Mich., 142, 151... 287
McKinnon v. Thompson 8 Johns. Ch., 307 248
McKinstry v. Conly _12 Ala., 678 294
McKnightv. Gordon 13 Rich. Eq., 221 292
TABLE OF CASES. Ixi
PAGH.
McLeodv. Bernhold 82 Ark., 671 297
McMiohael V. Carlyle 53 Wis., 504 214
McMuUen v. Eiley 6 Gray, 506 ,.„ 155
McPhersonv. Watt L. R. 3 App. Cas , 354 173
McRea v. Central Nat. Bank of Troy.66 N. Y., 489 11
McVaughters V. Elder 2 Brev. (S. C), 307.. 115
Mean's Appeal 85 Pa. St., 75 ' 263
Mechanics, etc., Bank v. Farmers, etc.,
Bank 60 N. Y., 40 60
Medina V. Stoughton 1 Ld. Raym., 593...' 182
Mehlbery V. Fisher 24 Wis., 607 195
Meigs' Appeal... 63 Pa. St., 28 13
Meinckev. Folk _55 Wis., 427 151
Merchant v. Merchant 2 Bradf . Surr. Rep. , 432. 130, 1 33
Merchants' Bank V. Bank of Columbia.5 Wheat., 326 44
Merchants' Savings, etc., Co. v. Good-
rich .75 lU.. 554 225
Merrimao Mining Co. v. Bagley 14 Mich., 501 265
Merrimac Mining Co. v. Levy 54 Pa. St., 227 256, 265
Merriamv. Field 24 Wis., 640 184
M errick v. Germania Fire Ins. Co 54 Pa. St. , 277 223
MerriUv. Bartlett. 1 6 Pick., 46 .;. 38
MerriU V. Hunnewell 13 Pick., 213 168
Merriman V. Chapman ...32 Conn., 146 184
Merritv. Johnson 7 Johns., 473. 68, 69
Mesner v. Granger 4 Gilm., 69 184
Messerv. Woodman 23 N. H., 181, 183... 157, 158
Methudy V. Ross 10 Mo. App., 101,106 227
Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dy ck 27 N. Y. , 400 274
Meyer v. Wheeler ..65 Iowa, 390 205
Michenerv. Dale 23 Penn. St., 59 130
Mich. Cent. R. E. Co. v. Phillips 60 111., 190 166
Middlebrook V. Corwin ..15 Wend., 169 20
Middlesex R. R. Co. v. Boston, etc.,
R. R. Co 115 Mass., 347 S70
Middlesex Co. v. Osgood .4 Gray, 429 186
■ Mildam Foundry v. Hovey .21 Pick., 417 277
Miles V. Bough 3 Q. B., 845 259
Miles V. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co 8 Gray, 580 234
Miles V. Miller 12 Bush., 134 204
Ixii
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE.
Miles V. Roberts 34 N. H., 3.')3 18&
Millar V. Taylor 4 Burr., 23u3 83
Millens v. Smith 1 Drew & S. (Ireland, Ch.), 304 241
MiUer v. Barkeloo 8 Ark., 818 27»
Miller V. Fitzgibbons 9 Daly, 505 151
Miller V. Lumsden 16111., 161 195
Miller v. Eeigne Ji HiU (S. C), 593.... 115
Miller V. The Bebecca Bee Adm., 151 BOr)
Miller V. Young 38111., 354 183
Millington V. Fox 3 Mylne & C, 833-.. 104
Mills V. Stewart 41 N. Y., 384 261
Miner V. Bradley 33 Pick., 457 289
Miner V. Judson 2 Hun, 441... 292
Minter V. Wells .Webs. Pat Cas., 139. 79
Mires V. Solesby 2 Mod., 243 165
Mitchell V. Beckman 64 Cal., 117 856, 257
Mitchell V. Gile 13 N. H.,890 142
Mitchell V. Lycoming Ins. Co. 51 Pa. St. , 403 238
Mitchell V. Selman 5 Md., 276 21T
Mitchell V. Winslow .3 Story, 630.. 148
Mitchell V. Zimmerman 4 Tex., 75 175
Mixer V. Howarth 31 Pick., 305 151
Mixey V. Cook 31 Me., 340 166-
Moale V. Buchanan 11 Gill. & J., 323... 161
Mobile Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cullum .49 Ala., 558 257
Moline Wagon Co. v. Rummell 2 McCrary, 301 295
Mondellv. Steele 8M. &W., 858 182
Monroe V. Hamilton 6 Ala., 226 295
Montague v. Montague 15 Beav., 565 248
Monteflori V. Montefiori Wm. Bl., 363 ISO
Montgomery v. Lampton 9 Met., Ky., 519 219
Moody V. Blake 117 Mass., 33, 26 60-
Moody v.Browe 34Me., 107 204
Moody V.Brown ..84Me., 107 _ 168
Moore V. Bank of Columbia 6 Pet., 86 217
Moore v. Bank of Commerce 52 Mo., 377 46
Moore V. Darton 4DeG. &Sur., 517.. 133
Moore V. Hyman 13 Ired., 273 217
Moore V. Murdock 26 Cal., 514 180,392
Morehouse v. Comstock 43 Wis. ,624, 626 182, 185-
TABLE OF CASES. Lxiii
PAGE.
Morelandv, Myall...-. 14 Bush, 470 154
Morgan V, Morgan 65 Ga., 495 15
Morgan V. Richardson ^ 13 Allen, 410.1 197
Morgan V. Rogers 19 Fed. Rep., 696 101
MorreUv. Frith 3 M. &"W.,405 216
Morris V. French 106 Mass., 326 154
Morris v. Thomson McCart. (N. J.), Ch., 493 241
Morris V. Tillson 81 lU., 607 302
Morrison V. Lods 39 Cal., 385 175
Morrison V. Lovejoy 6 Minn., 224 206
Morrison V. Semple 6 Binn. Pa., 93 1
Morrow V. Tumey _35 Ala.,131 293, 299
Morse V. Bellows ..7N. H., 549 288
Morsev. Sherman 106 Mass. , 430, 432.. 186
Morse v. Tappan .3 Gray, 411 110
Morton V. Dean 13 Met., 388 162
Morton v. Onion ..45 Vt., 145 141
Morton V, Tibbetts 15 Q. B., 428 157
19L. J. Q. B, 382... 157
Moses V. Meed .5 Denio, 617 185
IDenio, 378 185
Mosley v. Crocket .9 Rich. (S. C), Eq. , 339 292
Moss V. Sweet 16 Q. B., 493 145
Mossman V. Forrest , 27Ind., 233 302
Moulton Y. Norton, 5 Barb., 286 311
Moultrie v. Jennings 2 McNuU (S C), 508. 127
Mowry V. Wood _ 12 Wis., 413 293, 299
Muller V. Poudir 55 N. Y.. 325, 337 ... 192
MuUerv. Eno 14 N. Y., 597 207
Mullikenv. Millar 12 R. I., 296 178
Mumford V. Nicoll .20 Johns., 611 38
Murray v. Bogart 14 Johns., 318 48
Murray V. Lardner 2 Wall., 710 61
Mut. Ins. Co. V. Dale 18 Md., 26 233
Myers V. Kaufman 37 Ga., 600.... 275
Mygatt V. N. Y. Prot. lus. Co 21 N. Y., 53 237
Myrickv. Dame 9 Cush,, 248 288
Ixiv TABLE OP OASES.
PAGE.
N,
Nathan V. Whitlook 9 Paige, 152 263
National Bank v. Landon 45 N. Y., 410 .-. 49
National Bank, etc. , v. Landon .45 N. Y., 410, 414 264
National Filtering Oil Co. v. Citizens
Ins. Co 106K. Y.,535 205
National Citizens' Bank v. Howard... 3 How. Pr. Rep. (N.
S), 513.. 276
Naugatuok Cutlery Co. v. Babcock ... 32 Hun, 481 177
Needham V. Hill 137 Mass., 131 36
Needham's Case .8 Co., 135a 351
Neideferv. Cliastain 71 Ind., 363 175
Neilerv. Kelley 69 Pa. St., 403, 407 .. 354
Nelson V. McGiffert. .3 Barb. Ch., 158 140
Nelson V. Pub. Adm'r 2 Bradf. Surr., 310.. 140
NeUisv. Lothrop 33 Wend., 131 333
Nepton V. Leaton 71 Mo., 358 381
Nettleton V. Sikes 8 Met., 34 153
Neufville V. Thomson 3Edw. Ch., 93 139
New Castle Fire Ins. Co. v. McMorran 3 Dow. P. C, 255 ... 232
Newcomb V. Peck .17 Vt, 302 381
New England Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v.
Belknap 9 Gush., 140 338
New England Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v.
Butler .34Me., 351 238
New England, etc., Ins. Co. v. Robin-
son 35 Ind., 536 327
New Haven Pat. Rolling Spring Co. v.
Farren 51 Conn., 334 103
NewhaUv. Vargas 13 Me., 93, 193 191, 192
Newman v. Alvord ..51 N. Y., 189 97
49 Barb., 588 102
Newman V. Morris - .4 Har. & McH., 221_ 150
Newport V. Cook. .2 Bradf. Surr., 332.. 244
New York Mar. Ins. Co. v. Prot. Ins.
Co 1 Story (C.C.Rep.), 458 233
Hew York & H. R. Co. v. Hawes 56 N. Y., 175 59
Newry, etc., R'y Co. v. Moss 14 Beav., 64 367
N. H. Sav. Bankv. Downing 6 N. H., 187 44
Niblp V. North Am. Ins. Co..., 1 Sandf., 551 230
TABLE OF CASES. IxV
PAGE.
Nicol V. Am. Ins. Co 3 Wood & M. (TJ. S. C ), 589 233
Nichol V. Stewart 36 Ark.-, 612 395
Nicholasv. Adams ^ Whart., 33 130, 131, 134
Nichols V. Moore 100 Mass., 377 303
Nicholson V. Chapman ^ H, Bl., 254 61
Nixon V. Brown 57 N. H., 34 60
Nixon V. Nixon 31 Ohio St., 114 203
N; & N. W. R. R. Co. V. Jones 2 Cold., 584 181
NoakesvMorey 30 Ind., 103 159
Norris V. Blair 39 Ind., 90 163
Norrisv. Harrison. 3 Mad. Ch. R.,268... 333
North V. Forrest 15 Conn., 400 153
Northwestern Ins. Co. v. Atkins 3 Bush. (Ky.), 3S8... 235
North Western Ins. Co. v. Phoenix Oil
& Candle Co.- 1 Pa. St., 449 235
Northwestern Ins. Co. v. Seward 36 N. Y., 139 304
Northwood v. Rennic 3 Ont. Ap. , 37 (1878), 207
Norwood V. Cobb 24 Tex., 551 281
N. Y. Cab Co. v. Mooney 15 Abb. N. C, 152 .. 102
o.
Oakmanv. Rogers 120 Mass , 214 163
Oaks V. Tiirquand L. R. H. L., 325 177
Obert V. Hammel -..3Harr., 73 387
O'Brien V. Young .95N.Y., 438 110
O'Donnel V. Seybert 13 Serg. &. R., 57... 315
O'Donnellv. Sweeney...: 5 Ala., 467 180
Ogdenv. Saunders .13 Wheat., 213 118, 120
Ogilviev. HuU 5 Hill, 53 - 321
O'Hearv. Goesbriand 33 Vt., 593 21
Ohio Mut. Ins. Co. v. Marietta Woolen
Factory .3 Ohio St., N.S., 348. 237
Old Colony R. R. Co. v. Sears 6 Gray, 25 163
Oliphantv. Baker ...5 Denio, 379 164
Oliver V. OUver 11 C. B., N. S., 139.. 94
Olmsteadv. Niles .7 N. H. 522 153
O'Neil V. Crane 67 Mo., 350 163
O'NeiU V. N. Y., etc. Co 3 Nev., 141 151
O'ReiUyv. Bard 105 Pa. St., 569 262
E
Ixvi TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE.
O'Reilly v. Morse 15 How., 63 7S
Orrv. Kaines ^ Ves. Sen., 193 250
Osborne V. Bank of U. S 9 Wheat., 738 43-3
Osborne V. Barge 35 Fed. Rep., 93 41
Osterhout V. Roberts 8 Cow., 43 HI, 291
Ottoman v. Woolen Mills Co. v.
Hawley .44 Iowa, 57./ 12
Cutwater V. Dodge 6 Wend., 397 _ 156
Owenson V. Morse 7 T. &. R., 50 195
P.
Packard v. Louisa _ 2 Woodb. & M., 49.. 307
Packard v. Kingman 11 Iowa, 219 302
Pacific R. R. Co. v. Lincoln Co. 1 Dill. C. C. R., 314. 43
Paddonv. Taylor • .44N. Y.,371 177
Pagev. Esty 54 Me., 319 _ 282
Pagev. Ferry 1 Fish., 298 75
Page V. Foster 7 N. H., 392. 301
Pagev. Symunds 63N. H., 17... 23
Pagev. Trufant 2 Mass., 159, 162 287
Paige V. FuUerton Woolen Co 37 Vt., 485 236
Painev. Parsons 14 Pick., 318 249
Palmer V, DeWitt.. .47 N. Y., 532 84, 91, 95, 96
47N.Y.,538 87
Palmer V. Medina Ins. Co 30 Ohio, 537 44
Palmer V. Palmer _55Mich.,393 113
Palmer v. Phoenix Mut. Ins. Co 84 N. Y., 63 197
Palmer V. Shirley _16 Ind., 380 293
Parham V. Thompson ,..3 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.), 206. , 17
Parker V. Fergus 48 lU., 437 39
Parker V. Ferguson 1 Blatchf., 407 74
Parker V. Marston .27 Me., 196 _ 133
Parkerv. Merchant .' 1 Phil. (N. C), 355... 272
Parker v. Staniland.. 11 East, 362, 365 1.53, 154
Parkerv. StUes ....15 How., 44 76
Parker V. Wallis 5E. &B.,21 157
Parkhurst V. Kinsman 1 Blatchf., 488 74
Parmleev. Adolph 28 Ohio St., 10 175
Parshallv. Eggert 53 Barb., 367 291,299
TABLE OF OASES. Lxvii
PAQB.
Parsons V. Camp 11 Conn., 525 20
Parsons V. Sutton 66N. Y., 92 204
Parton V. Prang 3 Cliff., 537, 556 87
Partridge V. Badger 25 Barb., 146 — 44
Partridge v. First, etc., Ch 39 Md., 631 23
Partridge v. Menck 1 How. App. Cas. , 547. 100, 108
Partridge v. Partridge Cas. 1 Talb., 226 248
Pasley V. Freeman -3 T. R., 51 182
Passaic Mfg. Co. v. Hoffman 3 Daly, 495 151
Passenger v. Thorburn 34 N. Y., 634... 206
PatcUnev. Pierce 12 Wend., 61, 63 298
Patten's Appeal .45 Pa. St., 151 191
Pattison's Appeal 61 Pa. St., 29, 294... 16, 158
Patton V. The Randolph ..GUp., 457 805
Pawsonv. Watson Cowp.,785 232
Paye V. Paye 2 P. Wms., 489 246
Payne V. Cave 3 T. R., 148 145
Payson V. Stoever 2 Dill., 427 263
Peabody V. Speyers 56 N. Y., 230 ' 152
Pearson V. Seay 35 Ala., 612 301
Pease V. Gloahec L. R., IP. C, 220... 177
Pease V. Smith 61 N. Y., 477........ 60
Peay V. Barber ..1 Hill Ch. (S. C), 95. 244
Peckv. Burr ....10 N. Y., 294 180
Peck V. Vandemark 99 N. Y., 29. 161
Peek V. North Staffordshire R. R. Co..H. L. C. ,, 472-569 ... 161
Peltier V. Coinns 8 Wend., 459.. 163
Pence v. Langdon ...99 U. S., 578 289
Pendergast v. Turton 1 Young & Coll. (N. R.), 98 106
1 Young &C. Ch.,97 256
Pendleton V. Dyett 4 Cow., 58, 581 321, 322
8 Cow., 727. 321
Penfleld v. Thayer 2 E. D. Smith, 305.. 125
Penhallow V. Dwight 7 Mass., 34 16, 18
Penn. Ins. Co. V. Murphy 5 Miim., 36 48
Pennunan v. Hartshorn 18 Mass., 87 163
Pennock V. Coe 28 How., 117. 148
Pennywitv. Foote 27 Ohio St., 600 281
Penroyer v. Shelden .4 Blatchf., 816 186
People V. Anderson ..14 Johns., 294 59
Ixviii TABLE OF OASES.
PAGE.
People V. Assessors, etc 1 Hill, 616, 630 43, 43
Peiople V. Cogdell ..1 Hill, 84 59
People V. Gordon 83 111., 435 214
People V. Johnson 14111., 343 136
People V. McGarren 17 Wend., 460 60
People V. O'Brien. IIIN. Y.,1 269
People V. Peacock .98111., 172. 263
People V. Phoenix Bank 7 Bosw., 20 281
People V, Buggies 3 Johns., 390 91
People V. Smith _ 51 Barb., 360 282
Peoria Marine & Fire Ins. Co. v. Lewis_18 111. ,553 233
Peoria Ins. Co. v. WhitehUl 25 lU.. 466 285
Perceval V. Phipps .2Ves. &B.,19, 24-. 92,93
Perkins V. Eckert 55 Cal., 400 187
Perrin V. Granger. 30 Vt, 595 260
Perrin V. Terrell SON. J. L., 454 207
Perrins V. Little 1 Green., 348 210
Perry V. CaiT 44 N. H., 122 20
Perry V. Mt. Hope Iron Co 15 R. I., 66 _ 146
Perry V.Smith 33 Vt., 801 197
Perry V. Truefitt .6 Beav., 66 100
Petteev. Orser 18 How. Pr. R., 443. 41
Peters V. Newkirk 6 Cow., 103 812
Peters V. Peters .43N. J. Eq., 140. l.. 34
Pettis V. Ray 13 R. I., 344 285
Peytoe'sCase - 9 Rep., 79b _ 285
Peyton v. Smith Dev. & B (N. C), L., 335 36
Pflstnerv. Bird 43 Mich., 14 165
Phelps V. Staiings .6 N. H., .505 163
Phila. & Trenton R. Co. v. Stimpson..l4Pete., 458 79
Philadelphia Ins. Co. v. Washington
Ins. Co -23 Pa. St., 250 222
Philips V. Ocumulgee Mills 55 Ga. , 634 168
Philips V. Stevens 16 Mass., 340 830
Phillips V. Bistolli 2 B. & C, 511 156
Phillips V. BuUard-- 58 Ga., 256 196
Phillips V. Winslow 18 B. Mon., 431 148
Phipps V. Buckman 30 Pa'. St. , 403 175
Phipps V. McFarlane 3 Minn., 109 151
Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Allen 11 Mich., 501 194,195
TABLE OF CASES. Ixix
PAGE.
Phoenix, etc., Co. v. Badger .67 K. Y., 294 263
Picard v. McCormick 1 Mich., 68 143
Pickering V. BardweU 21 Wis., 562 202
Pickering V. Langdon 22 Me., 413 „ 136
Pickettv. King- 34Barb.,192 218
Pierce V. Corf. X. E. 9 & Q B., 210. 163
Pierce V. George .108 Mass., 78 296
Pierce v. Hasbrouck 49 111., 23 297
Pierce t. Proprietors, etc 10 E. I., 227 23
Pierce V. Wright 33 Tex., 631 '.. 287
Piersonv. Post 3 Cai. Cas., 175 65
Pierson v. Catlin 18 Vt.,77 290
Pike V. Nicholas .20 L. T. N. S., 906... 89
Pmkham v. Mattox 53 N. H., 66 157
Pinnel'sCase .- 5 Eep., 117 _ 286
Pitts V. Beckett 13 M. &W., 743 162
Pitts V. Mangum 2 Bailey, 588 128
Pitts V. Wemple 6 McLean, 558 80, 81
Pitts V. Whitman 2Story, 609 81
Pittsburg & Cornellsville R. R. Co. v.
Clark .29Pa. St.. 146 258
, Pittsburgh, etc., R. E. Co. v. County
of Allegheny 63 Pa. St., 126 254
Pittsburg, etc., R. R. Co. v. Heck 50Ind., 303 204
Planters' Bank v. Andrews ..8 Port., 404 44
Pleasants V. Pendleton 6 Band., 473 164
Plimpton V. Bigelow .93 N. Y., 592, 599... 254
Plumer v. Plumer 30 N. H., 558 20
Poolev. Middleton. .29Beav.,646 257
Popev. Curl 2 Atk., 342 92, 94
Pophamv. Cole ..66N. Y.,69 100, 103
• Poplett V. Stockdale Ryan&M. N. P., 837. 170
Port Carbon Iron Co. v. Groves 68 Pa. St. , 149 .184
Portage Coimty Mut. Ins. Co. v. West.6 Ohio, 599 _ 235
Porter V. Barrow 3 La. An., 140 204
Porter V. Nelson .4 N. H., 130 294
Porter V. Parmly 42 How. Pr., 445 291
Post V. Hampshire Mut. Ins. Co 12 Mass., 555 234
Postell V. SkirUng Desaus, (S. C.) Eq., 158 35
Pottery. CromweU 40 N. Y,, 287. 11
IXX TABLE OF OASES.
PAGE.
Potter V. Holland .4Blatchf., 210 210
Pottery. Neal .62 How. Pr. R., 158. 36
Potts V. New Jersey Arms, etc., Co. ..17 N. J. Eq., 395 11
Powderv. Rhea 32Ark., 435..." 295
Powder Co.. V. Burkhart 97 U. S., 110 144
PoweUv. Barham 4A. &E.,473 182
PoweU V. McAshan 28 Mo., 70 154
Powell V. North Mo. R. R. Co 42 Mo., 63 269
Powell V. Waters 8Cow.,669 _ 209
Pratt V. Huggins 29 Barb., 277 218
Pratt V. Railroad Co 21 N. Y., 305 226
Pray v. MitcheU 69 Me., 430 152
Prentiss V. Euss 16 Me., 30 289
Presb. Ch. V. Andrus 1 Zabr., 325 21
Prescottv. Locke 51 N. H., 94 151
Preacott V. Wells 3Nev.,82 8, 10
Price V. Pickett _21 Ala., 741, 15
Price V. Price 16 M. & W., 231 194, 195
Price& Brown'sCase 3 DeGex&Sm., 146. 267
Prince V. Hazleton 20 Johns., 502 189
Prince Albert v. Strange .2 De G. & Sm., 652.. 84
Prince v. Cobb 1 63 Me., 200 60
Prindellv. Grooms 18 B. Mon., 501 295
Pringle V. Phillips 6 Sandf., 157 177
Pritchardv. Howell 1 Wis., 131 217
Protection Ins. Co. v. Harmer 2 Ohio St., 452 233
Providence Bank v. Billings 4 Pet. ,562 43
Provincial Ins. Co. v. Shaw. U. C. D. B., 533 265
Public Administrator V. Hughes 1 Bradf . Surr. Rep.,
125,128,129 115
Pulciverv. Page .' 32 Me., 404 68
Pullenv. Palmer 3 Salk., 207 313
Pullman V. Upton 96 if. S., 328 267
Pulte V. Perby 5 McLean, 328 84
Purdy V. Austin 3 Wend., 187 217
Purney v. Piercy 40 Md., 212 153
Purse V. Snaplin 1 Atk., 414 241
Putnam v. Lewis 8 Johns, 389 194
Putnam V. The PoUy .Bee Adm., 157 305
Putnam V. Wiley 8 Johns., 432 67
Putnam v. Wise ' 1 Hill, 234 43
TABLE OF CASES. Ixxi
PAGE.
Q.
Quincy v. Tilton 5 Me., 377 289
Quiver v. Marblehead Ins. Co 10 Mass., 476 46
R.
Eacev. Mississippi 25Miss.,54 383
Raev. Hulbert 17 lU. , 572, 580 110
Ragland v. Justices 10 Ga., 65 300
Railroad Company v. Howard 7 Wall. , 393 254
Ramsell V. Tewksbury 78 Me., 197 297
Randv. Hubbell 115 Mass., 461, 474 .. 255
Randv. White Mountains R. R. Co.-.40N. H.,79 308, 260
Randall v. Johnson 18 R. I., 338 41
Randonv. Barton .4 Tex., 389 305
Rankin V. Barnes 5 Bush. (Ky.), 20 381
Raphael V. The Bank of England 17 C. B., 161 60
Rasorv. Quails 4Blackf., 386 17
Rawlingsv. Hunt 90 N. C, 370 148
Raymond V. Commissioners, etc 5 Ohio, 305 „ 45
Raymonds. Merchant.. .J 3 Cow., 147, 150 195
Readv. Lanahan 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. Rep., 375 41
Redfieldv. Tegg 38 N. Y., 312 143
Reedv. Cutter ...1 Story, 590 74, 75
Reeder V. Sager 70 Ind., 180 16
Reed v. Shaw 1 Blackf., 345 288
Reedv. Spaulding ...42 N. H., 114 136
Reed V. Upton 10 Pick.. 533.. 166, 167
Redgrave V. Hurd 20 Ch. D., 1,13 174
Redman V. ^tna Ins. Co 49 Wis., 438. 181
Rees V. Peltzer 75 HI., 475 84
Reeve V. Whitmo re .4 DeGr. J. & S., 1 148
Reeves v. MoKenzie .1 Bailey, 497, 500 811, 315
Remick V. Sandford 120 Mass., 809 156
Rensselaer, etc., R. R. Co. v. WetseL.21 Barb., 56 360
Rentch V.Long 27 Md., 188 151
Re Pontius 36 Hun, 333 269
Rex V. Arkwright .Webs. Pat. Cas., 71-73 80
Rexv. Bayley 1 Car. & P., 435 .- 388
Eexv. Collector 2M. &S.,236. .3S
IxXll TABLE OP OASES,
PAGE
Rexv. Mucklow lEyan&M., 160.... 59
Reynolds v. Kortright Beav., 417, 427 244
Rhoads V. Jones _93Ind., 338 284
Ricev. Barnard , 29Vt., 479 40
Rice V. Churchill 2 Den., 145' 186
Ricev. Rice 4 Pick., 349... 801
Rice, Robertson v. Montgomery Rice, 87 291
Rich V. Lippincott 3Fish., 1..1 76
Rich V. Milk.. 20 Barb., 616. 303
Richard v. Bankes 13 East, 20 273
Richard V. Borden. 43 Miss., 71 13
Richards V. Humphreys .15 Pick., 133,135 248
Richards V. Killam 10 Mass., 243, 247... 318
Richards v. Richards 2 Bam. & AdoL, 447 123
Richardson V. Copeland , 6 Gray, 536 296
Richardson V. Dutch Ch _33Barb., 42 23
Richmond v. Dubuque, etc. , R. R. Co.40 Iowa, 264 206
43 Iowa, 423 206
Ricketts v. Dorrell 55Ind., 470 66
Rickey V. Tenbroeck 63 Mo., 587. 202
Riddlev. Driver 12 Ala., 590 70
Riddleberger v. Hartford Ins. Co 6 Wall., 386 236
7 Wall.. 386 236
Ridenourv. Mayo .40 Ohio St., 9. 264
Rider V. Wager 3 P. Wms., 329, 330. 248
Ridges V. Morrison 1 Br. Cr. Cas.; 389... 243
Ridgway'v. Ingraham 50 Ind., 148 161
Ridgway V. Wharton 6 H. L. C, 338, 264,
368 163, 336
Riggs V. Magruder 2CranchC. C, 143.. 153
Riley v, Farnsworth .116 Mass., 333 163
Ringv. Kelley 10 Mo. App., 411 287
Ripley v. Mtaa, Fire Ins. Co 30 N. Y. , 136 231
Ripley v. Waterworth _7 Ves., 425 40
Rishtonv, Whatmore 8 Ch. D.,467 162
Bobbins V. Ayers 10 Mo., 538 _ 284
Robbinsv. Butler 24 lU., 887 47
Robbins V. Clay 83 Me., 132 270
Robbinsv. Farley 2 Strobh., 348 218
Roberts V. Beatty 2 Pen. & Watts, 63.. 197
TABLE OF CASES. Ixxili
PAGE.
Roberts V. Caldwell 5 Dana, 513 281
Robertson V. Berry 50 Md., 591 103
Robertson V. Bullions ....^11 N. Y., 243 43
Robertson V. Smith 18 Johns., 459 88
Robiev. Sedgwick 35Barb.,319 45
Robinson V. Bliss 12 Mass., 438 302
Robinson V. Campbell _8Mo., 365 297
Robinson V. Cropsey 3 Edw. Ch., 138 801
Robinson v. Fitch _26 Ohio St., 659 297
Robinson V. Georges Ins. Co' .17 Me., 131 237
Robinson V. Hoffman 4 Bing., 663 313
Robinson V. Lane 19 Ga., 337 269
Robinson V. McDonnel 5 M. &S.,328 148
RockviUe, etc., Turnpike Co. v. Max-
weU ^ Cranch C. C, 45U 261
Rodgers v. Jones 129 Mass., 423 158
Rodman V. Thalheimer 7 Pa. St., 233 173
Rodwell V. PhUlips 9 M. & "W„ 503 154
Rogers V. Cox 96 Ind., 157 154
Rogers V. Crow .40 Miss., 91 32
Rogers V. Moore 1 Rice, 60 Ill
Rogers V. PhiUips .40N. Y., 519. _ 156
. Rogersv. Thomas 20 Conn., 53 191
Rogers V. Van Hoesen _13 Johns., 221 187
Rogersv. Williams .-- 5 Mo., 335 17
Rootv. Ball 4 McLean, 177 77
Rosev. Bozeman 41 Ala., 678 204, 205
Itosenbaum V. Weeden 18 Gratt., 785 201
Roseveltv. Brown lllSr.Y., 148 267
Ross' Appeal 9 Pa. St., 491 154
RossT. Bank, etc 19 Pac. Rep., 343 261
Rosseau v. City of Troy .49 How. Pr. R., 492.. 34
Rossiterv. Miller 46 L. J. Ch., 328 162
5 Ch. D., 648, C. A.. 163
Rowley T. Bigelow 12 Pick., 312 191
Rowley V. Stoddard 7 Johns., 207 288
Royal Baking Powder Co. v. Sherrell.93 N. Y. , 331 99
Royal Bank of India's Case -L. R. 7 Eq., 91 267
Royalton v. Royalton, etc., Co 14 Vt., 311 205
Rucher v. Conyngham 3 Pet. Adm , 295 304
Ixxiv TABLE OF OASES.
TAQE.
Euokerv. Donovan 13 Kan., 351 191
Euggv. Minett 11 East, 300 164
Eunneford Chemical Works v. Mutli 35 Fed. Eep., 524.... 98
EusseUv. Carrington 43N. Y., 118 165
s. c. , 1 Am. Eep. , 498 165
Eutland & BurUngton R. E. Co. v.
ThraU 35 Vt., 536 359,360
Eyan V. Goodwin 3 Sum., 514, 518 73
Eyan V.Ward .48 N. Y., 304_ 286
Eyder, V. Neitge 31 Minn., 70 185
Eynderav. Crane 3 Daly, 339 129
Eyno V. Darby 20 N. J. Eq., 231.... 180
Sabine V. Bank of Woodstock 21 Vt., 353 46
Sackett V. Andross 5 HUl, 327 118
Saddler's Co. v. Babcock 2 Atk., 554, 534 321, 331
Safford v. McDonough 120 Mass., 390 158
Sainsbury V. Matthews 4M & W., 434 158
Saladinv. MitcheU.... 45ni.,85 201
Sale V. Lambert.. 18 Eq. Rep., 1 163
Salsbury V. Parsons -43Hun,13... 18
Salt Lake City Nat. Bank v. Hen-
drickson 40 N. J. Law, 52 263
Sampson V. Graham 96 Pa. St., 405 8, 9
Samuel V. Berger 4 Abb. Pr. Eep., 88.. 100, 102
Sanborn V. Goodhue 38 N. H.,48 129
Sanders V. Logan 3 Fish., 167 _ 77
Sanderson v. Caldwell 2 Aiken, 195 111
•Sands V. Hill 42 JBarb., 65. 238
Sanger V. Upton 91 U. S., 56 258
Sargent V. Franklin Ins. Co 8 Pick., 90 255
:Sarlv. Bourdillon 26 L. J.C. P., 78 163
1 C. B. (n. s.), 188... 163
-Saunders V. Frost 5 Pick., 270... 200
-Saunders v.Topp 4 Ex., 390 156
Sawyer V. Gerrish.. 70 Me., 254 148
Sawyer v.Hoag 17 Wall., 610,620... 258,263
■Sawyer V. Ware 36 Ala., 675 153
TABLE OF CASES. LxXV
PAGE.
Sayles v. North Western Ins. Co 2 Curtis (U. S. C. C),
613 23Z
Scarlett v. Academy of Music 43 Md. , 303 259'
Scheif ele v. Schmitz .43 N. J. Eq. , 700 . . 13
Schneiderv. Norris 3 M. &T., 286 140
Schollenberger v. Brinton 53 Pa. St. , 9, 100 374
Schroedner v. Insurance Co 2 Phil. Pa. ,386 236
Schumaker V. Eby 24 Pa. St , 531 166
Schuyler V. Leggett _2 Cow., 660.... '813
Scogginv. Slater 23 Ala., 687 154
Scottv. Avery .2 Eng L. &Eq., 837. 286
5H. L. C, 311 336
Scottv. Haddock. ..._ llGa.,258 315
Scottv. Henry ." 13 Ark., 112- 393, 294
Scottv. Simes 10 Bosw., 314 139
Scottv. Stanford..' LawEep. 3Eq., 718. 89
Scott V. The Phoenix Ass. Co. 1 Stewart (Lower Can-
ada), 153 336
Scotton V. Scotton 1 Str., 385 348
SooviUe V. Thayer 105 U. S., 143... ... 262
Scoville V. Tolland 6 West. Law Jour. , 84 89
Scranton V. Clark 39 N. Y., 230 183
Searingv. Searing 9 Paige, 288 123
Secorv. Secor 18 Abb. N. C, 78, n. 24
Seddenv. Prindle ....■ 17 Barb., 466 „ 181
Seller V. Clelland 2 C<)1., 532 17&
Sellon V. Watts 7 Jur. N. S. , 184 347
9 Weekly Eepr. , 847. 247
Semayn's Case.. 5 Co. E., 91 314
Sewal V. Glidden , 1 Ala., 53 : 136
Sewell V. Price 82 Ala., 97'. 394
Sexton V. Montgomery Ins. Co 9 Barb., 191 285
Sexton V. Wheaton 8 Wheat., 339 137, 128, 180
Seymontv. Street 5 Neb., 85 384
Seymourv. Davis : .3 Sandf., 329........ 151
Seymour V. Mintum 17 Johns., 169 287
Seymourv. Newton lQ5Mass., 375 192
Shaf tsbury V. Shaf tsbury 2Vern.,747 248
Shanks V, Klein 104 U. S., 18 40
Shannon v. Jones 4 Ired. (N. C), L. , 306 18
Ixxvi TABLE OF OASES.
PAGE,
Shardlo-w V. CottereU 18 Ch. D., 280 162
20 Ch. D., 90, C. A... 162
Sharington v. Stratton ,1 Plow., 398, 309 287
Sharpy. Gibbs C. B. N. S., 537 284
Sharp V. Gray 5 B. Mour., 4 Ill
Hharpley Y. HarreU. Cro. Jac, 308 304
Shaver V. Shaver 54 Iowa, 208 97, 104
37 Am. Kep., 194.... 97, 104
Shawv. Barhart 17 Ind., 183 289
Shaw V. Beveridge .-. '.3 HiU, 26 31
Shawv. Corbrey 13 AUen, 462 154
Shawham V. Van Nast _ .. 35 Ohio St., 490 168
Shawhantv. Van West 25 Ohio St., 490 201
Shears v. SoRinger 10 Abb., Pr. Eep. (N. S.), 287 121
Sheldon, etc., Co. v. Eickmeyer, etc.,
Co 56 How. Pr., 71 270
90N. Y., 607 270
Sheldon V. Fairfax 31 Vt.,103 44
Shepherd v. Hampton 3 Wheat., 200 305
Shepard v. Milwaukee Gas Light Co.-15 Wis., 318 306
Shepherd v. Pressey 33 N. H., 49 157
Sherman v. Champlain Transp. Co 31 Vt., 163 183
Sherman V. Duch 16 lU., 383 314
Sherwood v. Am. Bible Soo 1 Keyes, 561 42
Shickle V. Watts -.. .7 S. W. Eep., 274.... 261
Shinners V. BriU .38 Wis., 648 297
Shook V. Daly 49 How. Pr., 366, 368 90
Shuartv. Taylor 7 How. Pr., 351 295
Shuman v. Shuman 37 Pa. St., 90 _ 180
Shuttle worth v. Greaves .4 My Ine & C. , 35 246
Shuttleworth V. Wmter 55 N. Y., 634 189
Sibley v. Perry 7 Ves., 580 242
Sidenerv. Bible ....43 Ind., 230 300
Siegert v. Abbott 61 Md., 276 101
48 Am. Eep. ,101 101
Silsby v. Barlow 16 Gray, 329 43
Silsburyv. McCoon 6 HiU, 425 69
Simmons V. Clark 56111., 96 385
Simonds V. Hodgson 3 Barn. & Adol., 50. 304
Simmons V. Jenkins 76 lU., 479 297
TABLE OF OASES. IxXVii
PAGE.
Simmons V. Swift 5 B. &C.,857 165
Singer Manuf . Co. v Kimball Scottish L. E. , 173. , 104
Singer V. Walmsley IFish., 558 76
Sisson V. Hubbard 10 Hun, 430 396
Six Carpenters' Case. i SEep., 146, b 813
Skinner V. Dayton 19 Johns., 513 48
Skinner V. Oakes 10 Mo. App., 45 97, 100
Skinner V. Perot ..1 Ashur., 57 107
Sledge V. Scott 56 Ala., 303 174
Sleuterv. WaUbaum. .45 111., 44 204
Slooum V. Seymour 86 N. J. L., 138 153
Smart V. Batchelder 51 N. H., 140 164
Smith V. Alexander 4 Sneed, 483 391
Smith V. Andrews .49 HI., 38 295
Smith V. Arnold .5 Mason, 416 168
Smith V. Beattie 81N. Y.,543 393
Smith V. Benson 1 HUl, 176 395
Smith V. Brown 8 Hawks, 850..: 286
Smith V. Bryan .5Md.,141 158
Smith V. Clark 34 Barb., 140 140
Smith V. Colson 10 Johns., 91 311
Smith V. Coolbaugh .,31 Wis., 437 800
31 Wis., 427 395
Smith T. Dolby ..4Harr. (Del.), 850... 140
Smith V. Dorsey .38 Ind., 451 131
Smith V. Dunlap 13 lU., 184 205
Smith V. Ely 15 How., 137 76
Smith v.Flyer ..3 Hill, 648 811
Smith V. Hudson -5 B. & S., 481. _ 157, 157
84L. J. Q. B.,145... 156,157
Smith V. Hughes 6 Q. B , 597 175
Smith v.Jenks .1 Denio, 580 395
IN. Y.. 90 395
Smith V.Jones 18 Neb., 481 41
66Ga., 388 163
4 Ohio, 115. 348
Smith V. Kay 7 H. L. Cas., 774.... 175
Smith V. Knowlton. UN. H., 191 279
Smith V. Lampton 8 Dana, 69 343
Smith V. Maryland 6 Cranch, 386 390
IxXViii TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE.
Smith V. McChesney :...:.15 N. J. Ch., 359.... 140
Smith V. Miller 43 N. Y., 171 195, 196
63N. Y.,546 195
Smith v. Moore UN. H., 55 299'
Smith V. Neal- 2 0. B. (N. S.), 67.... 163
26L. J. C. P., 143... 163
Smith V. New York, etc., Co 18 Abb. Pr., 419, 435. 270-
Smith V. N. Y. C. R. E. Co .4 Keyes, 180 151
Smith V. Park 81 Minn., 70 _.. la
Smith V. Pettee .70 N. Y., 13, 18 201, 202-
Smith V. Rice 56 Ala., 417 295
Smithy. Shell 82 Mo., 215 16a
Smith V. Smith : 4Eajid., 95 3T
21 Pa. St, 367 172-
SBlackf., 208 163-
1 Thomp. & Cook
(N. Y.), 63 274
Smith V. Spooner 3 Pick., 239 ICT
Smith V. Stewart 6 Johns., 48 81fr
Smith V. Surman 9B. &C., 561 153
Smith V.Waggoner .50 Wis., 155 12'
Smithv. Waite - 4Barb.,28 141
Smith V. Walker 57 Mich., 456 ._ 98
Smithv. Weaver 90111., 392 142-
Smith V. Wheeler .5 Gray, 309 187
Smithv. Wood 37 Tex., 616... 274
Smithurstv. Edmunds 14 N. J. Eq., 408 148
Smithurst V. Woolston 5 Watts &S., 106... 205
Sneed V. Hooker.., Cook (Tenn.), 200... lia
Snevily V. Read .9 Watts, 396.. 219-
Snow V. Perkins 60 N. H.,493; s. c,
49 Am. Rep., 333.. 20^
Snow V. Warner 10 Met., 133 156
Snowdonv. Craig _26 Iowa, 165 296-
Snyder v. Knuckleman 3 Penn. , 487, 490 312^
Snyder v. Snyder 60 How. Br. R., 368. 23, 24
Soars V. Home Ins. Co 140 Mass., 343 237
Sohier V. Trinity Ch _109 Mass., 1 21
Soles V. Hickman 20 Pa. St., 180 16a
TABLE OF CASES. Ixxlx
PAGE.
Somes V. BritiBh Empire Shipping Co.l E. B. & E., 867 201
L, J. Q.B.,330 201
8H. L. C.,338 201
SOL. J. Q. B., 221... 201
Somera V. Richards 1 46 Vt., 170 174
Somers V. Wright 115 Mass., 293 204
Southworth v. Smith 27 Com., 855 34, 36
Spangler v. Ind. & 111. Central R. R.
Co 21 111., 276 258, 259
Sparhawkv. BueU 9 Vt.,41 246
Spears V. Hartley 3Esp., 81 318
Spencer V. MoGown .^ 13 Wend., 356 315
Spivey V. Morris ^.18 Ala., 254 111,391
Sprigg V. Bank of Mt. Pleasant -14 Pet. ,301 394
Spring Co. v. Knowlton 13 Otto, 49 308
S. P. Stubbs V. Houston 33 Ala., 555 138
St. Joseph E. E. Co. v. Shacklett 30 Mo,, 551, 558 258
St. Joze V. Indians 1 Wheat., 208.. 166
St. Louis Iron M , etc., Co., v. Loftin.30 Ark., 693, 709 253
St. Paul's Ch. V. Ford 34 Barb., 16 21
Stedmanv. Gooch 1 Esp., 3,4 194, 195
Steadmanv. Page... ...1 Salk., 390 313
Steams V. Barrett 1 Mason, 153 79
Stearns V. HaU 9 Cush., 31 288
Steams V. Washburn 7 Gray, 187 186
Stephenson v. Dowson 3 Beav., 842 241
Stevens V. Brlggs 5 Pick., 177,..''. 69
Stevens V. Lodge 7Blaokf., 594 315
Stevens V. Vancleve .4 Wash. C. C, 3£3.. 138
Stevensonv. Newnham 18 C. B., 385 177
23 L. J. C. P., 10.... 177
Stevenson V. Lambard 2 East, 576 331
Sewall V. Jones ..9 Pick., 412. 107"
Stafford Bank V. Palmer 47 Conn., 443 ._ 364
Stafford V. Bryan 2 Paige, 45 317
3 Wend., 533 317
Stagg V. Beekman.. •. 2 Edw. Ch., 89 351
Staggv. Compton 81 Ind., 171 145
Stainbank V. Fanning (i Eng, L. &Eq., 413 306
Stall V. Wilbur 77 N. Y.. 158 37
ISXX TABLE OF OASES.
PAGE.
Stanley V. Nelson 28 Ala., 514 180
Stanley V. Whipple 3 McLean, 35 7»
Stansfield v. Portsmouth. 4 C. B. (N. S.), 119 -- 18
Stanton v. Eager 10 Pick., 475 ^.. 191
Stanton V. Small 3 Sandf., 280 147
Starbuck V. Murray 5 Wend., 148 281
State V. Armfleld 2 Hawks., 246 313
State V. Bailey 16Ind.,46 271
State V. Bonham 18Ind.,S31 10
State V. Franklin Bank 10 Ohio, 90, 97 46
State of Maine v. Intoxicating Liquors.61 Me. , 520 289
State V. Moore 18 Mo. App.,40e 113
State V. Murphy 8 Blackf., 498 64
State V. Randolph 26 Mo., 213 283
State V. Smith.. 2 Me., 62 283
State V. Thackaw 1 Bay, 358 315
State V. Whittaker 19 La. Ann., 142 283
Stewart V. BeU... 33 Miss., 154 67
Stewart V. Lay. 45 Iowa, 604 263,267
Stires v. Van Renssfelaer 2 Bradf . , Surr. , 172.. 246
Stockdalev. Onyirhynl 5 Barn. & C, 173... 90
Stocken's Case , L. E. 3 Ch., 412 261
Stocker V. Partridge 2 Roberts, 193... 161
Stockettv. Sasscer 8 Md., 374 217
Stockhamv. Stockham 32 Md., 196 146
Stockton V. Ford 18 How., 418 282
Stockwell V. Phelps 34 N. Y.,368... 66
Stoddard V. Dennison 38 How. Pr., 296 803
Stoddard v. Shetucket Foundry Co. . . .34 Conn. ,542 255
Stokes V. Cooper 4 Camp., 514 323
Stokes V. HoUis .43 Ga., 362. 294
Stone V. Aldrich ^43 N. H., 52 85
Stone V. Browning 68 N. Y., 598 156
51N. Y.,311 156
Stone V. Flagg 73IU.,897 43
Stone V. Nichols 43 Mich., 16 197
Stone V. Peacock 35 Me., 388 _ 165
Stonebreaker v. Stonebreaker 33 Md. . 252 104
Story's Ex'rs V. Holcombe 4 McLean, 806 89
Storey's WiU 20111. App., 183 139
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixxxi
PAGE.
Stout V. City Fire Ins. Co 13 Iowa, 371 333
Stovalv. Barnett - ..4Litt.,307 387
Strauss V. Eagle Ins. Co 50hioSt., 59 44
Strauss V. Frederick... 19 N. C, 131 41
Strauss V. Ross 35Ind., 300 165
Street v.Blay 3 Barn. & Ad., 456.. 389
Street V. Chapman 39Ind., 143 145
Strickland V. Turner 7 Ex., 308 147
Strohecker v. Grant 18 Serg. & E. , 337. .. 318
Strong V. Colter 13 Minn., 83 36
Strong V. Doyle .110 Mass., 93 154
Strong V. Manuf. Ins. Co 10 Pick., 40 330
Strong V. Williams 13 Mass., 391 350, 351
Strubee v. Cincinnati So. By. Trustees-39 Am. Eep., 351 70
78Ky., 481 70
Stubbs V. Lund 7 Mass., 453, 456 .... 191
Stuart V. Landers 16 Cal., 373 110
Sturges V. Crowninshield 13 Wheat., 119 118
4 Wheat., 133, 195. 119, 130, 133
Suberv. Pulling IS. C, 373 151
Suisse V. Lowther 3 Hare, 434, 433, 433. 343
SuUivan v. Park 33 Me., 438 107
Sunmerv. Sumner 7 Harr. & J. (Md.), 388 140
Summers V. Vaughn 35Ind., 333 . 183
Sun Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mayor.. ..8 Barb., 450 238
Sutton V. Sutton 5 Harr. (Del.), 459... 138
Sweny V. Smith .L. R. 7 Eq., 334 261
Swiggart v. Harber .5 111., 364 383
Swooper's Appeal ...'. 37Pa. St., 58 349
Sykes V. Beadon 11 Ch. D., 170 180
Syler v. Eckhart. - 1 Binn. (Pa.), 37S.... 138
Sylvester V. Girard 4Rawle, 185 59
Symonsv. Hughes .3 Eq., 475, 479 208
Taberv. Hamlin ....97 Mass., 498 393
Taft V.Travis 136 Mass., 95 149
Talbot V. DeForest 3 Iowa, 586 393
Tallman V. FrankUn 14N. Y., 584 161
p
Ixxxii TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE.
Tallmanv. Jones 13 Kan , 438 29T
Talmanv. Smith. 39 Barb., 390 398
Tancilv. Seaton 28 Gratt. (Va.), 601.. 59
Tannery. Smart ..6 B. & C, 603, 609.. 316, 317
Tappan V. Bailey 4Md.. 535 48
Tatev. Williamson ..L. E. 3Ch.,55 173
Tayloev. Insurance Co 9 How., 390 146
Taylor V. Bowers 1 Q. B. D., 391, C. A., 308
Taylor V. Carpenter 3 Story, 458 99
Taylor v. Carpenter .3 Sandf. Ch., 611,613 104
Taylor V. Cox ...3 6. Mon. (Ky.), 439. 34
Taylorv. KeUey 5Hun,115... 136
Taylor V. Jones L. E. C. P. D., 87... 145
Taylorv. Patterson 9 La. An., 351 107
Taylorv. Taylor 8 How., 199 139
Taylor et al. v. The United States 3 How. ,197 58
Taylor V. Wilson 11 Met.. 44. 196
TeafE V. Hewitt .....lOhioN. S., 511.... 10
Teesev. Phelps 1 McAU., 48 75
Templev. Mead .4Vt.,586 140
Tenney V. TheN. E. Protective Union.87 Vt., 64 47
Terboss V. Williams 5 Cow., 407 313
Terrell V. Martin. 64 Tex., 131 34
Terry V. Wheeler ...35 N. Y., 535 165
Terwilliger V. Knapp 2 E. D. Sm., 86 188
Tesson v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co 40 Mo. ,33 233
Tewksbury V. Bennett .31 la., 83... 183
The Angelica Blatohf. Pr. Cases, 566.. 58
The Augusta 1 Dod., 383 808
The Aurora 1 Wheat., 96 305,307
The Bray v. Bates 9 Met., 237 .. 804
The Brig Atlantic _1 Newb. Adm. , 514.. 305
The Brig Nestor .1 Sumn., 85 307
The Caledonia 4 Wheat., 100 58
The Cargo of Ship Emulous 1 GaU., 563 58
TheChusan 3 Story C. C, 468.... 307
The Cognac 3 Hagg. Adm., 387.. 804
The Collins Co. v. Cowen 3 Kay & J., 438 99
The Collins Co. v. Brown 3 Kay & J., 433 99
The Constancia 10 Jur.,850 „ 806.
TABLE OF OASES. IxXXlii
PAGE.
T^he Draco 2 Sumn., 157 803, 305
The Duke of Bedford 3 Hagg. Adm. , 294. . 305
The Emancipation ^..IWm. Rob., 139 805
The Fortitude 8Sumn.,246 305
The Glen & Hale Manuf. Co. v. Hall.61 N. Y., 226, 380. .. 99, 101
The Hero 3 Dod., 139 307
The Hilarity .Blatchf. & H. Adm., 90. 305
The Hunter .Ware, 341 805
The Jane 1 Dod., 466 ' 305
The Kammerheive v. Eozencratz 1 Hagg. Adm., 63... 306
The King V. Dodd 9East,516 47
The Leather Cloth Co. v. The Am.
Leather Cloth Co De Gex, J. & S., 187 99, 101
11 House of Lords
Cas.,523 ..'... 99,101
The Lord Cochrane 3 Wm. Eob , 320 305
The Lucy Ann. 23 Law Eep. , 545 128
The Madonna D'Idra 1 Dod., 40 306
TheMary 1 Paine, 671 804,305
The Mary Ann 9 Jur., 95 806
TheMears 8 Cranch, 417 107
The Merrimao Blatchf. Pr. Cases, 584. 58
The Nelson 1 Hagg., 169, 176.... 806, 307
The Packet 3 Mason, 255 807
3 Mason, 255 308
The Royal Stuart .83 Eng.L.& Eq., 603 305
The Ship Packet .3 Mason, 255 305
The Sidney Cove 2 Dod., 1, 13 306
The Statev. Stevenson 2 Baily, 834, 335 107
The State V. Weston 9 Conn., 527 60
The Surplus, etc., of the Edith 5 Ben., 144 '275
The Tartar 1 Hagg., 1 307
The Virgin 8 Pet., 588 306
8 Pet., 583 306
TheYsabel - 1 Dod., 373.... 308
The Zodiac 1 Hagg., 330, 826.... 808
Tliomas'Case L. R. 13Eq.,437 361
1 De Gex & Sm., 579. 367,' 268
Thomas V. Heathom 3 B. & C, 477 386
Thomas V. Hunter 39 Md., 413 IW
IxXXiv TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE.
Thompson's Appeal 57 Pa. St., 175 281
Thomsonv. Batie 11 Neb., 147, 151.... 293
Thompson v. Dougherty 12 Serg. & E., 448- 127, 129
Thompson V. French 10 Yerg., 453.. 217
Thompson V. Hyper 67Penn., 368 _ 138
Thompson V. Pacific E. E. Co 9 Wall., 519 43
Thompson V. Eay - .46 Ala., 224 166
Thompson V. Spittle 102 Mass., 207 295
Thompson V. Stanhope _Ajnb., 732 , 93
Thompson V. Thompson 6Munf., 514 15
4 Gush., 134 117
Thompson V. The Bank of British N. A. -82 N. Y., 1 196
Thompson v. Winchester 19 Pick., 214 104
Thorn V. Newsotn 64 Tex., 161. 280
Thorn V. Thorn 51Mich.,167 287
Thome V. Barwick 16 Up. Can. C. P., 369 146
Thorndike V. Stone 11 Pick., 183, 187-303, 804, 305
Thornton V. Crowley 47 N. Y. Super. Ct.
(15 J. &-S.), 527 ' 97
Thornton v. Hempster .5 Taunt., 786 163
Thurlow V. Massachusetts..^ 5 How. U. S. Eep., 504 4
Thurstv. West 81 N. Y., 215 111
Tifft V. Porter 8 N. Y., 518 841, 242
Tiftv. Horton 58 N. Y., 377 296
Tiley V. Moyers. 43 Pa. St., 404 321
Tillinghastv. Wheaton 8 E. I., 536 184
Tilton Saf e Co. v. Tisdale 48 Vt., 83 184
Timms V. Shannon .19 Md., 296... 300
Tinney V. Stebbins 28 Barb., 290 87
Tippets V. Heane Cromp. M. & E., 252 218
Tisdale V. Harris 20 Pick., 9 153
Tobey V. Barber 5 Johns., 68 195
Tobey V. Eeed 9 Conn., 316 _. 16, 17
Tobey V. EusseU 9 E. I., 58 263
Todd V. Harding 5 Ala., 698 294
Tompkins V. Halleck .138 Mass., 32 95
48 Am. Eep., 480 95
Tongue V. Nutwell 31 Md., 303 230
18Md.,415 246
Tower V. Tudhope Up. Can. Q. B., 200_ 157
TABLE OF CASES. IxXXV
PAGE.
Towns V. Springer 9Ga., 130 279
Townsendv. Henry ...9 Rich. L., 318 197
Traders' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stone 9 Allen (Mass.), 483.. 238
Trammellv. Thurmond 17 Ark., 203 290
Transportation Co. t. Ciicago 99 U. S. Eep. , 367. „ 4
Tread well v. Salisbury Mfg. Co 7 Gray, 392 271
Treakly v. Fox 9 B. & 0., 130 251
Trebilcock V. Wilson 12 Wall., 687 275
Tredwen V. Holman- 1 Hurl. & C, 72 .... 237
Trevor V. Wood- „36 N. Y., 307....' 146
Trimble V. Eatclifle 9B. Mon., 511...... 138
Tripp V. Riley 15 Barb., 333, 336. ._ 37
Tritt's Adm'rs v. Colwell's Adm'rs 31 Penn., 232 123
Trostv. Dingier 118 Pa. St., 259 139
Trott V. City Ins. Co 1 Cliff. (U. S. C Ct.), 438 237
Trucks V. Lindsay -18 Iowa, 505 391
Trumeny. Fenton Cowper, 548 213
Tryonv. Sutton 13 Cal., 490 123
Tucker V. West 29 Ark., 386 180
Tucker Manuf. Co. v. Boynton 10 U. S. Pat. Gaz., 455 100
Tuckerman V. Brown 33 N. Y.,397 339
Turner V. Burrows 8 Wend., 144 239
Turner v. Langdon 113 Mass., 265 186
Turner V. Tendall 1 Cranch, 116 276
Tutton V. Darke 5 Hurl. &N., 654... 314
Tyler V. ^tna Ins. Co 12 Wend., 507 233
Tyler V. Gardiner 35 N. Y., 559 138
u.
Umsted V. Buskirk 17 Ohio St., 113 267
Union Ins. Co. v. Hoge How. (U. S.), 35 237
Union Meeting House v. RoweU 66 Me 31
United States V. Behan 110 U. S., 338 205
United States v. Burdett 9 Pet., 682 107
United States v. Delaware Ins. Co 4 Wash. C. C, 418.. 306
United States v. Roche 1 McCrary C. C, 385 98
United States v. Seventy-six Thousand
One Hundred and Twenty -five
Cigars 18 Fed. Eep., 147.._ 107
LxXXVi TABLE OF OASES.
PAGE.
tJnited States v. Stefifens 100 U. S., 83 98
United States V. Tanner "6 McLean, 138 92
United States v. The Active 3 Car. Law Kep., 193 58
United States v. Thompson Gilp., 614 388
United States v. Two hundred, etc.,
bales of Cotton Law Rep. N. S., 451. 58
Updegraph v. Commonwealth 11 Serg. & R., 394... 91
Upton V. Hansbrough 3 Biss., 417 265
Upton V. Tribilcock ...91 U. S.,45.. 263
Utleyv. Donaldson .94 U.S.. 29, 47 145
V.
Vacuum Oil Co. Buffalo Lubricating
Oil Co .26 Weekly Dig., 570. 103
Vaden V. Vaden 1 Head. (Tenn.), 144. 122
Vail V. Strong lOVt.,457 143
Vaisey V. Reynolds ..5Russ., 12 272
Valentine V. Foster 1 Met., 520 ^19
Valentine V. Jackson.. 9 Wend., 302, 323... 116, 311
Van Bea v. Prescott 82 N. Y., 630 101
Van Bracklin V. Fonda 12 Johns., 468 185
Vandenberg V. Palmer... .4 Kay & John., 204. 127
VapDeusenv. Rowley. 8 N. Y., 358 127
Van Doren V. Baity "11 Hun, 239 34
Van Dyke V. Bastedo 15 N. J. L., 224 390
Van Guysling V. Van Kuren 35N. Y., 70 138
Van Hanswyck v. Wiese .44 Barb., 494 139
Van Houton v. Reformed Dutch Ch..2 Green. (N. J.), 126. 22
Van Nest V. ConoverJ 20 Barb., 547 177
Van Nostrand V. Carr 30 Md., 128 121
Van Rensselaer V. Bradley ,..3Denio, 135 322
Van Rensselaer V. Dennison 35 N. Y., 393 29
Van Rensselaer's Ex'rs v. Gallup 3 Denio, 445 323
Ven Rensselaer's Ex'rs V. Jewett 5 Denio, 135 317
Van Rensselaer V. Jones _3 Barb., 643 333
Van Ripper v. Van Ripper 1 Green. Ch., 1 250
Van Valkenburgh V. Smith 60 Me., 97 287
Van Vechten v. Van Vechten 8 Paige, 104 143, 244
Van Wert V. Benedict 1 Bradf. Surr., 114.. 14J
TABLE OF CASES. IxXXVii
PAGE.
Vassar V. Buxton .86N. C, 335 166
Vasserv. Camp. UN. Y., 441 146
Ventressv. Smith 10 Pet., 161 60
Vermilyeav. Austin 3 E. D.Smith, 208... 321
Vielev. Osgood 8 Barb., 130 21
Vincent V. Leland 100 Mass., 433 207
Virtue V. Beasley .3 Mood. &M., 21... 313
Voorhees v. McGinnis.... 48 N. Y., 278, 387... 396
Voorbesv. Earl 3 Hill, 388 307
Voorhees V. Fresh. Ch 17Barb.,103 22
Voorhiesv. Earl. .3 HUl, 292 489
Vorebeck v. Eowe 5 Barb., 303 153
Vosev. Deane .7 Mass., 380 283
Vose V. Life and Health Ins. Co 6 Cush., 42 234
Vroom V. Van Home 10 Paige, 549 116
w.
Waddingtonv. Bristow 2 B. &P.,453 153
Waddingtonv. Buzby 43 N. J. Eq., 154 139
Wade V. Moffitt 21 lU., 110 165, 186, 203
74 Am. Dec, 79 186
Wadleigh v. Janvrin 41 N. H., 508 10
Wagstaff V. Wagstaff Law E. Eq., 239 143
Wainnaman V. Keinman 1 Exch., 118 199
Wainwright v. Bland 3 Mad. & Rob., 481.. 333
1 Mees. & W., 33.... 233
Waitev. Dennison 51 111., 319 302
Wakefield V. Fargo 90 N. Y., 213 365
Walden V. Chamberlain .3 Wash., 390 305
Waldman V. Broder 10 Cal., 378 35
Waldo V. Belcher 11 Ired., 609 164, 168
Walker v. Bartlett 18 C. B., 845 266
Walker's Case 3 Rep., 33 b 317
Walker V. Hall 34 Pa. St., 483 141
Walker v. Pue 57 Md., 155 184
Walker V. Staples 5 Allen, 34. 298
Walker V. Suple 54 Ga., 178 152
Walker V. Wait 50 Vt, 668 318
Wall V. Wall 28 Miss., 409 283,290
IxXXViii TABLE OF CASES,
PAGE.
Wallace V. Breeds 13 East, 523 168
WaUacev. BardeU 97 N. Y.,131 136
Wallace v. Pomfret 11 Ves., 543 349
Walrath V. Ingles .64 Barb., 365.. 159
Walls V. Gates 6 Mo. Ap., 243. 207
WaUsv. Stewart 4 Harris, 381 341
Walter V. Flint Cro. Eliz.. 743 333
Walton V. Crowley 3 Blatchf. C. C, 440. 101
Walton V. Walton 7 Jolms. Ch. R., 358, 363, 264 242, 348
Walsh V. Sexton 55 Barb., 351, 256 134
Walsh V. Washington, etc., Ins. Co.-.33 N. Y., 437 235
Warburton v. Aken 1 McLean, 460 383
Ward V. GriswoldviUe Mfg. Co. 16 Conn., 593 _ 261
Ward V. Shaw 7 Wend., 404 164
Ward V. Turner 2 Ves. Sen., 431, 439, 440 130, 133
Ward V. Lant Prec. Ch., 183 348
Warnev. Beach 4 Gray, 163 141
Warner V. Welhngton 3 Drew., .533... 163
25 L. J. Ch., 663.... 163
Warren V. Leland 3 Barb., 613 153
Warren V. Tomey 13 Serg. &E.,53 313
Warren v. Tyler .81 lU., 15 _ 389
Warren V. Whitney 24 Me., 561 319
Warriner v. The People 74 111., 346 196
Wart V. Scott -6 Grant (Ont.), 154.. 191
Washburn v. Gould 3 Story, 133 74, 75
Washburn V. Merrills 1 Day, 139 394
Waters V. Thanot J3 Q. B , 757 214
Water's Patent Heating Co. v. Smith.130 Mass. ,444 389
Waterman v. Meigs 4 Cush., 497 150, 163
Watkinson v. Inglesby .5 John., 386 285
Watts V. Friend 20 B. & C.,446 155
Waugh V. Cope 6 M. & W., 834 218
Waukf ord V. Waukford 1 Salk., 299 _ 251
Waukon, etc., R. R. Co. v. Dwyer 49 Iowa, 121.. 256
Waydell V. VeUe , ...1 Bradf., 277 197
Wear v. Jacksonville & Savannah R.
R. Co 24ni., 593 259
Weaver V. Wallace 9 N. J. L., 251 175
Webster V. DeWitt 1 36 N. Y., 340 183
TABLE or CASES. IxXXlX
PAGE.
Webster V. Granger .78111., 230.. 184
Webster V. Upton ..91 U. S., 65 265
Webster V. Zielly „53Barb., 4 3 _ 160
Weedv. Boston Ice Co 13 Allen, 377 165
Weeks V. Burton 7Vt., 67 175
Weeks V. Silver Islet, etc., Co 55 N. Y., Super, Ct.
(J. & S.), 1, 16.... 106
55 J. & S. (N. Y.), 1^ 260
Weikersheim's Case l.L. E. 8 Ch., 831 267
Weir V.Bell L. R. 3Ex. D.,288.. 175
Welch V. Saokett 13 Wis., 343 35
Weld V. Cutler 2 Gray, 195 164
Weldv. Oliver 21 Pick., 559 86
Weld V, "Walker 130 Mass., 432; s. o.
39 Am. Rep., 465.. 24
Welldr V. Shearman 3 Denio, 363 314
Wells V. Larrabee 86 Fed. Bep., 866 267
Wells V. March SON. Y., 344 41
Wells V. Martine 2 Bay, 20 107
Wentworthv. Bullen ^ 9 B. & C, 850 285
Wentworth V. Day 3 Met., 353 61
Wentworth v. First Parish 3 Pick., 344 S3
West Branch Ins. Co. v. Helfenstein..40 Pa. St., 389 231
Westv. Crary 47 N. Y., 433 800
West V. Pritchard 19 Conn., 313, 215... 204, 205
Westv. Wentworth 3 Cow., 83... 205
Westchester, etc. , E. R. Co. v. Jackson.77 Pa. St. , 331 255
Westcott V. Minnesota, etc., Co 33 Mich., 145 260
Westervelt V. Lewis 2 McLean, 511 279
Westfall V. Hudson' River Fire Ins. Co.2 Duer, 490, 494 233
Weston V. Hight 17 Me., 287 133
Wetherbeev. Green J23 Mich., 311 70
WetheriUv. Stillman 65 Pa. St., 105 281
Wetmore v. Zabriskie 29 N. J. Eq., 63 37
Whartonv. Morris .1 Dall., 134 _ 273
Whartonv. Stoughtenburgh _35 N. J. Eq., 366 236
Wheatonv. Gates 18 N. Y., 395 _ 21
Wheaton v. Peters .8 Pet., 591 84
Wheeler v. Wheeler „11 Vt., 60 286
Whetstone v. Whetstone 31 Iowa, 376 281
XO TABLE OF OASES.
PAGE.
Whipplev. Parker ^9 Mich., 370 49
Whipple V. Stevens 2 Foster, 319 218
Whislerv. Koherts 19 lU., 274 297
White V. Allen 2 Fish., 440 76
White V. Basoom 28Vt.,268 211
White V. Brooks .43 N. H., 402 36
Whitev. Buss. — ....3 Cush., 448, 450.... 179
White V. Casten 1 Jones L. N. C, 197 140
Whitev. Cole '. 24 Wend., 116 298
Whitev. Dingley 4 M^ss., 483 288
Whitev. Foster 102 Mass., 375 153
Whitev. Haight. 16N.Y., 310 239
White V. Havens. .1 2How. Pr. Kep , 177. 237
White V. Methodist Epis. Ch ..„3 Lans., 477 21
Whitev. MiUer 7 Hun, 427 206
71 N. Y., 118 _ 206
78N. Y., 393 206
White V. Molyneux 2Ga., 124 _ 320
White V. Palmer... 1 McNuU (S. C.), Ch. 115. 128
Whitev. Philhrick 5 Grenl., 147 Ill
Whitev. Salisbury 33 Mo.. 150..^ 205
Whitev. Tompkms 62 Pa. St , 363 204
Whitfield V. Gates 6 Jones, Eq., 136.... 294
Whitfield V. Whitfield... 40 Miss., 352. 128
Whitley v. Eoberts .1 McClel. & Y., 107. 318
Whitmarshv. Cutting 10 Johns., 360 15
Whitmarsh V. Walker 1 Met., 313 158
Whitmore V. Scovell 3 Edw. Ch., 320 93
Whitney v. Emmett. 1 Baldw., 303 75, 80
Whitney V. French 25 Vt., 663 300
Whitney V. LoweU 33 Me., 318 297
Whitney V. Myers 1 Duer, 267.. 323
Whittaker v. Farmers' Union Jns. Co.29 Barb. ,813 238
Wicks V. Ludwig 9 Cal., 178 279
Wiggle V. Wiggle 6 Watts, 522 138
WikoflC's Appeal 15 Pa. St., 281 140
Wilcox V. Hall 53 Ga., 635 _ 184
Wilcox V. Kassick 2 Mich., 165 281
Wild V. WiUiams 6 M. & W., 490 288
Wilkins v. Lindo 7 M. & W., 81 288
TABLE "OF OASES. XCl
PAGE.
Wilkinson V. Tousley 16 Minn., 399 22&
Willard v. Tillman 19 Wend., 358 320
WiUard V. Whitney .49 Me., 285 _ 281
Williams V. Bacon 2 Gray, 387 161
Williams V. Carpenter. _36 Ala., 9 197
Williams V. Crary _5Cow.,870;8Id.,246;
4 Wend., 443 250
Williams v. Howard 3Munf., 277 813
Williams V. Jones 13 East, 489 218
Williams V. Robinson 73 Me., 186 168
Williams v. Spencer 4 Johns., 352 815
Williams V. Storm 2 Duer, 52 209
Williams v. The Bank of Mich .7 Wend., 542 47
WiUiams V. Watkins 3 Pet, 51..: 86,51
WilUams v. Western Union Tel. Co. ..93 N, Y., 162, 188... 253
Williamson V. Sammons _34 Ala., 691 183
Willings V. Consequa... Pet. C. C, 301. 288
Wilmer V. The SmUax 2 Pet. Adm., 295 808
Wilmerding v. Mitchell 52 N. J. L., 476 294
Wilmshurst V. Bowker 2 M. & G., 792 166.
WUsonv. ^tnalns. Co._ 27 Vt., 99 285
Wilson V. Brannan 27 Cal., 258 : 298, 300
Wilson V. HiU 3 Met., 66 221,229,
Winchester v. Nutter 52 N. H., 507 225
Windt V. German Reformed Ch „4 Sandf . Ch. ,471 23
Wingv. Merchant 57 Me., 883 127
Winslowv. Crocker _17 Me., 29 123
Winsorv. McLellan 2 Story, 493 299
Winter V. Bandell 80 Ark., 362 175
Wintermute V, Reddington 1 Msh., 339 75-
Witiierby V. Ellison ..19Vt., 379 20
Witherell v. Marine Ins. Co 49 Me. , 200 . . ., 233
Withers v. Buckley 20 How. U. S. Rep., 84 4
Withers V. Weaver 10 Penn. St., 391 128
Wittersheim v. Lady Carlisle 1 M. & W., 533 214
Wittowski V. Wasson 71 N. C, 451 142
Wolcott V. Mount 36 N. J. L.,363 184
Wolf V. Estes 7Ind,448 138
Wolfe V. Goulard 18 How. Pr., 64 98
Wolf V. Washburn .6 Cow., 201.. 818-
y.CU TABLE OF OASES.
PAGE.
Woodv. Ash Owen's Eep., 139 67
-Vood V. Dummer 3 Mason, 308, 323..- 258, 368
JVoodv. Munn. , 5 Bing., 10 314
SVoodv. Pierson 45Mich.,313 61
Woodbury Savings Bank v. Charter
Oak Ins. Co 31 Conn., 517 234
Woodcock V. Parker 1 GaU., 438 74, 75
Woodruflf V. Dobbins 7 Blackf., 583 285
Woods V. McGee .7 Ohio, 467 _ 168
Woodson V. McClelland .4 Mo., 495 139
Woodson V. WaUace .23 Pa. St., 171 301
Woodwell V. Keeler .8 Watts & S., 63 48
Wood worth v. Eogers 3 Woodb. & M. , 135. 80
Woodworth v. Sherman 3 Story, 173 79
Woolam V. RatclifE 1 Hem. &M..359... 103
WooUaston's Case .4 De Gex & J., 437.! 261
Woolsej V. Judd.. .4 Duer, 379, 384 93, 93
Wooton V. Eedd 12 Gratt. (Va.), 196.. 136
Wordv. Cavin.. 1 Head, 506 183
Work V. Mercliants', etc.. Fire Ins. Co.ll Cush., 371 230
Worthenv. Wilmot ...30 Vt.,555 204
Worthington v. Bearse 12 Allen, 382 231
Wright V. Brown 67 N. Y., 1 . 178
Wright V.Ross 36 Cal., 414 298
Wright V. Ward 65 Cal., 523 41
Wright V. Weeks...' 35 N. Y., 158 163
Wyer V. Dorchester, etc 11 Cush., 51 373
Wylderv. Crane 53 111., 490 800, 303
Wymanv. Am. Powder Co .63 Mass., 168 357
Wynkoop v. Wynkoop -42 Pa. St., 393 24
Senos V. Markham 3 Law Eepts. (H. L.),
296 227
Y.
Yockney V. Hansard 3 Hare, 630, 623 243
Yostiv. Laughran .49 Misso., 594 173
Young V. Bruces 5Litt., 334 .... 147
TABLE OF OASES. XOUl
PAGE.
Young V. Glendenning 6 Watts (Pa.), 509... 138
Young V. HaU A Ga., 95 176
Young V. Merton 27 Md., 114 203
Young V. Miles 30 Wis., 615 168
Young V. Monpoey 2 Bailey (S. C), 278. 217
Youngv. Moses 53Ga., 638.., 268
Young V. Ward...' _21 lU., 333 132
Young V. Young .80 N. Y., 432, 480... 126
z.
Zaqueyv. FurUell 3 Camp., 240 164
Zeigler V. Eckhert 6 Pa. St., 13 250
Zuverv. Lyons 40 Iowa, 570 294
THE LAW OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
CHAPTEE I.
INTRODUCTORY.— DEFINITION AND USES OP THE WORD
" PROPERTY."— GENERAL CLASSIFICATIONS.
Section 1. Deflnition of the term.
2. Uses of the term.
3. Real, and personal, property.
4. Absolute, and qualified, property.
5. Linaitations of absolute ownership.
§ 1. Definition of the term The word " property "
may be defined briefly as the exclusive right of possess-
ing, enjoying, and disposing of, lands and chattels. ' The
' term ' ' exclusive right, ' ' hovrever, does not confine the
ownership to a single individual, for property may be
owned by two or more persons at the same time, jointly,
or in common;" nor does it necessarily imply immediate
possession ; for there may be an intermediate and tem-
porary rightful possession by a third party having a
special or qualified property in the subject of ownership ;
as in cases of a life interest, a mere usufruct, a lease, a
bailment, or a trusteeship. The exclusive right in our
definition of property, is the ultimate proprietary right
vested in^ one or more persons as -owners.
' Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 4, 5; And. L. Diet., "Property;" Bouv. L.
Diet., "Property;" 1 Cooley's Black., p. 139, notes (18), (19); Jackson
V. Housel, 17 Johns., 381, 283 ; Morrison v. Sample, 6 Binn. Pa., 94.
» See infra §§ 26, 37; Bouv. L. Diet., "Property," sub. 4.
2 OSES OF THE TEEM " PEOPEETT. " [§§2 3,
§ 5J. Uses of the term. — The word ' •property'' ' as used
in |;he law, has two general significations ; first, to indi-
jate the right or interest of a person in or to the subject
in question, as whether absolute or qualified; the absolute
right being the ultimate, exclusive proprietary right, con-
stituting ownership ; and the qualified property being an
intermediate, Hmited and temporary interest, or a right-
ful possession.' And, second, in connection with quali-
fying words it characterizes the particular subject or
kind of property in question, in respect of classification,
as whether real or personal.' In other words, it is used
both to, indicate the kind or cjLass of property in question,
and the interest of a party therein ; sometimes the one,
and sometijnes the other.
§ 3. Real, and personal, property The principal
line of distinction bet^Yeen the two classes runs between
mobility and inmoMUty. Heal property is that which is
immovable and permanent in its character or use. Under
the feudal law it was designated by, and embraced in,
the terms ' ' lands, tenements and hereditaments. ' ' The
term real property, as now. used in contradistinction to
personal property, includes land, together with perma-
nent structures upon and under its surface ; and, in legal
contemplation, land extends upwards usquw ad caelum,
and downwards usquce ad inferos. It will be seen, how-
ever, in a subsequent chapter, that certain things per-
sonal in their character are, under some circumstances,
regarded as part of the realty.
Personal property is movable in its nature, and em-
' Bouv. L. Diet., " Property," sub. 3 ; see infra § 4 ; And. L. Diet.,
" Absolute Property." ,
« See infra § 3.
§§ 4, 5.j ABSOLUTE, AND QUALIFIED, PEOPEETT. 3
braces every species of property not possessing the char-
acteristics of real property, as above defined.'
As personal property constitutes the subject of this
treatise, its characteristics wOl be' more fully shown in
subsequent chapters.
§ 4. Absolute, and qualified, property. — Absolute
property consists in a full and complete title to, and
dominion over, a thing. Qualified property is a tempo-
rary or special interest in a thing, which is liable to be
totally extinguished by the occurrence of some particular
contingency, without the act of the intermediate possessor
or proprietor. For examples of this class may be men-
tioned the iaterest of a person in light ; title to animals
feT(K naturm when captured ; the interest of a bailee in
goods bailed or pledged; the title of executors and
administrators to decedent's estate; and title of trustees
and guardians to the trust estate. And, the legal title
to a thing may be in one person and the equitable interest
in another, at one and the same time.'
§ 5. Limitatious of absolute ownership. — It should
be noted in passing that to absolute ownership of property
there are certain limitations which are the necessary con-
ditions of organized society and civil government :
First. A person is not at liberty to so use his own as
to injure the rights of another. Sic utere tw) ut aUenum
non loBdas is the legal maxim.'
'Tiede. on R. Prop., §§ 1, 3 ; Bouv. L. Diet., "Eeal Property,"
^'Personal Property;" 1 Soh. Pers. Prop., p. 25; 2 Black. Com., p. 385;
^ Kent Com., pp. 340, 341 and note.
■' Bouv. L. Diet., "Property," sub. 3; 2 Kent Com., pp. 847, 348;
2 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 695 ; Edw. Bail, g§ 36-43, 369-373.
'Broom's Leg. TUax., pp. 375-289; 1 Seh. Pers. Prop., p. 21 ; 1
Cooley's Blaek.,pp. 317-319; Bishop Non-Cont. Law, §§ 14, 15,412-433.
LIMITATIONS.
[§5.-
Second. The State, under what is known as the police
power, has authority to control the use of property in
the hands of its owner, within certain limits; and, in
some cases, even to take it from him without his consent
and against his will. Solus popuU sivprema lex.^
Third. The citizen owes to government allegiance and
support, in return for protection and benefits received ;
and the government has a rightful claim upon so much
of his property as may be requisite for its maintenance
and due administration. On this claim rests the author-
ity for taxation."
Fourth. The prerogative of eminent domaim, a sover-
eign power of the state, by which private property may
be taken for public use without the consent of the owner.
This power is lodged in the Legislature as the represent-
ative of the state, and its exercise conditioned, in this
country, upon providing for compensation to the owner.'
Fifth. The property of every person is liable for the
satisfaction of all his just debts, except in so far as it may
be exempt by statute. He cannot legally alienate his
property by gift, or otherwise dispose of it, in fraud of
his creditors. A hona fide purchaser, however, will be
protected as having an equity superior to that of a cred-
' Broom's Leg. Max., pp. ^-7; Bishop Non-Cont. Law, §§ 91-96;
Thurlow V. Mass., 5 How. U. S. Eep. 504.
» 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 3a-34; 1 Story Const., g§ 906-1053 ; Cooley
Const. Law, pp. 54-63 ; Cooley Const. Lim., pp. 479-531.
» 3 Kent Com., p. 339 ; Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed.), § 573 ; 1 Sch. Pers.
Prop., pp. 33-33; Bishop Non-Cont. Law, § 119; Const. U. S. Amend'ts,
Art. V. ; Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. , 343 ; Withers v. Buckley, 20 How.
U. S. Eep. 84 ; Transportation Co. v. Chicago, 99 U. S. Eep. 635, 643 ;
Kohl V. United States, 91 U. S. Eep. 367 ; Charles Elver Bridge v.
Warren Bridge, 7 Pick. 344, 445.
§ 5. J LIMITATIONS. 5
itor.' The enforcement of this limitation is ordinarily
elfected throua;h the instrumentality of the courts of
justice."
' Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed.), §§ 1200-1313 ; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 21; 1
Whart. Cent., §377 S,
' 2 Kent Com., pp. 340, 341 (note a); 2 Black. Com., pp. 16, 17, 384,
885-397 ; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 35 ; Tiede. R. Prop., § 1 ; McCaU R.
Prop., pp. 1, a.
6 CHAEACTEEISTIOS. [ §§ ^j 7.
CHAPTEE II.
CHARACTERISTICS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY.
Section 6. Mobility.
7. Change from personal to real, and vice versa.
8 Duration of the time of enjoyment.
§ 6. Mobility. The leading and an essential charac-
teristic of personal property, that which distinguishes it
from real property, is ' mobility. Under this distinction
it is quite easy to classify all subjects of property that
are tangible ; but without further instruction the student
might find difficulty in the case of intangible property,
of which there is a large class, such as debts, obligations,
and the like, denominated choses in action. These, in
contemplation of law, are movable. They are supposed
to attend the person of the owner, are subject to the
laws of his domicile in case of intestacy and insolvency,
and actions concerning them are generally transitory.
§ 7. Change from personal to real, and vice versa. —
It should be noticed that, through the operations of
nature, or the act of man, things immovable in their
character become movable, so as to change them from
real, to personal, property, and vice versa. Examples of
real, changed to personal, property : A tree while grow-
ing on the land is real property, but when feUed and cut
into timber or ^vood it becomes personal ; minerals while
in the earth are part , of the realty, but when quarried
they become personal property ; and growing fruit trees
are real property, but their severed fruit is personal.
§ 8.j DUEATION OF ENJOYMENT. 7
Examples ot personal, changed into real, property : Build-
ing materials, which are personal property, when
wrought into a house become real ; a young tree planted
temporarily in a nursery is personal property, but when
sold and transplanted it is converted into real property.'
Other examples might be given, but these are sufficient
for illustration.
§ 8. Duration of the time of enjoyment — But the
term personal property, at common law, includes more
than is characterized by the word movable. Duration
of the time of enjoyment is, in some cases, a determin-
ing factor in the classification, placing in the general
division of personal property things immovable in their
nature.
In the English law, any interest in the realty less than
a life estate was classed as personal property. This for
the reason that under the feudal system personal prop-
erty was regarded as of small importance compared with
real estate ; an interest in land limited in duration to a
determinate period did not rise to the dignity of a free-
hold, and was consigned to the inferior rank 'of personal
property.
In the progress of events, the advance of civilization,
and the expansion of commerce, there has been a marked
change in the comparative importance of the two classes
of property, especially in the United States ; yet the old
classification remains unchanged at cominon law. Hence
it is that a life estate in lands and tenements is real prop-
' 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 26, 27 ; Crouch v. Smith, 1 Md. Ch. Rep.
401; Golden v. Glock, 57 Wis. 118; Lewis v. Eosler, 16 West Va. Rep.
333; Higgins v. Kusterer, 4 Mich.* 318. '
8 DUEATION OF ENJOYMENT. [ § §•
erty, while an estate for years ranks as personal property,
albeit the years of the latter may far outnumber the
years of the former. Personal property, then, includes
two elements, TnoiiUty and dv/ration of the time of
enjoyment. '
' Pom. Mun. Law. §§ 376, 377 ; 3 Black. Com., pp. 385-388 ; 2 Kent
Com., pp. 341-843 ; 4 Kent Com., pp. 93-95 ; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., pp.
87, 28 ; Williams Pers, Prop., pp. 1, 2, and note 1.
§ 9. J FIXTURES. 9
OHAPTEK III.
IRREGULAR SPECIES OF PROPERTY.
Fixtures.
Section 9. What are fixtures.
10. Rules for guidance.
11. Between what parties.
12. Time of removal.
Emblements.
13. What are emblements.
14. What products the tenant may remove.
15. Who, and when, entitled to emblements.
16. Incidents.
Heir-looms.
17. Character, and law of, defined.
Manure.
18. When real, and when personal, property.
Church Furniture.
19. Law of this species of property.
Mortuary Property.
20. Kinds, legal rules, and burial rights.
There are certain species of property which, for rea-
sons appearing in this chapter, are irregular in respect of
classification, and require separate notice.
1. Fixtures.
§ 9. What are fixtures They are things which,
though personal in their nature, may become real prop-
erty when annexed to, or used in connection with, the
freehold. They are ambulatorj'^, being sometimes on
one side of the dividing line between real and personal
property, and again on the other. On which side of the
10 FIXTURES. [ § 10.
line the law will place a thing in a given case may depend
upon one or more of these conditions : 1, the permanency
of the annexation; 2, the purpose and use of the thing
annexed; 3, the intention of the parties; and, 4, other
circumstances being the same, the turning point may be
the parties concerned, or, in other words, the parties
between whom the question is raised.'
§ 10. Rules for guidance. — The subject of fixtures
has caused considerable perplexity in the administration
of the law ; and it is impossible, in a concise discussion,
to relieve it from all practical difBculties ; but a few rules,
deduced from the authorities, may be helpful to the stu-
dent and practitioner.
1. Annexation to the soil, either actual or constructive,
is requisite to convert a thing personal in its nature into
a fixture. Acludl annexation implies physical attach-
ment to the freehold; constructive annexation is that
which exists in contemplation of law, where there is no
actual physical attachment." To the latter kind belong
things adapted for use in connection with the realty ;
and things essential to the beneficial enjoyment of the
premises ; as deeds and other muniments of title, keys,
fencing materials, family pictures, and other things of
like character and use.
' Tiede. R. Prop., §§3-7; ISch. Pers Prop., pp. 135-160: And. L. Diet..
"Fixtures;" Bouv L. Diet., "Fixtures;" 3 Kent Com, pp 343-847;
Williams Pers. Prop., pp. 343-347, and notes ; "Wadleigli v. Janvrin,
41 N. H. 503 ; Prescott t. Wells, 3 Nev. 83; State v. Bonham, 18 Ind.
381; Sampson v. Graham, 96 Pa. St. 405 ; TeafiE v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio N.
S. 511.
' Tiede R. Prop., § 3 ; 1 Seh. Pers. Prop , pp. 137-189 ; Bouv. L.
Diet., " Fixtures," sub. 3 ; Williams Pers. Prop., p. 14, n. 1 ; And. L.
Diet.!, "Fixtures."
§ 10. J nXTUEES. 11
2. Asa general rule, things actually annexed, to the
freehold become part pf the realty ; and they so remain
when their removal cannot be effected without serious
injury to the freehold." But, when their reraoval can
be effected without such injury, there are cases in which
an nexation does not convert personal into real property.
For example, where the thing has been annexed for
the purpose of carrying on a trade ; where it is manifest
that it is the intention to use the fixture in some employ-
ment distinct from that of the occupant of the real
estate; and, generally, when it is clearly the intention
of the parties concerned that the thing annexed shall not
become part of the realty. "
3. In some cases, where the attachment to the free-
hold is slight, or where things permanently used in con-
nection with the land are temporarily detached, they
may be regarded as fixtures passing with the land. For
example, hop-poles stacked in piles ; rolls in an iron mill
lying loose in the mill ; and machinery fastened by screws
to the floor. Here, intention may become an important
factor in determining the class of the thing in question.
4. It should be remembered that the common law on
this subject is sometimes modified by statutory enact-
ments ; and these must be examined in all cases to which
they apply. For example, in New York the rule as
between the heir and the executor is fixed by statute.'
' Citations supra, under § 9 ; Tayl. Land, and Ten. , § 550 ; Bouv. L.
Diet , " Fixtures," sub. 3 ; 1 Soh. Pers. Prop , p. 140 ; McCall B.
Prop., pp. 88-91 ; And L. Diet., " Fixtures."
' 1 Soh. Pers. Prop., p. 141, and citations supra, undeiif § 9 ; Potter
V. Cromwell, 40 N Y., 287; McRea v. Central Nat. Bank of Troy, 66
N. Y., 489; Potts v. New Jersey Arms, etc., Co , 17 N. J. Eq., 395;
12 FIXTDEES. [§§ 11, 12.
§ 11. Between what parties. — The question whether
in a particular case a thing is, or is not, a fixture, and
also the right of removing the same, may depend for
solution upon the parties interested. Such parties are,
1, the heir and the executor; 2, devisees and the execu-
tor; 3, the executor of the tenant for life, and the
remainder-man or reversioner; 4, vendor" and vendee;
5, mortgagor and m ortgagee ; 6, debtor and creditor,
and the heir or vendee and the widow, in respect to
premises set off to her for dower ; and, 7, landlord and
tenant. In the first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth of
these classes the general rule is that things firmly annexed
to the freehold pass with it respectively l3TEe~heir7"
•devisee, vendee, mortgagee, heir or vendee and the
widow; and cannot be removed by the other parties.
While in the third and seventh classes the right of
xemoval belongs respectively to the executor of the ten-
ant for Hfe, and the tenant. Especially is the rule against
removal relaxed in favor of tenants. As between land-
lord and tenant the prevailing doctrine now is, that the
latter may remove all fixtures annexed by him for trade,
agriculture, or domestic use and convenience, when such
•removal will not result in serious and permanent injury
to the freehold. '
§ 12. Time of removal The right of removing fix-
tures may be affected by the time of its attempted
■exercise.
Hill V. Wentworth, 28 Vt., 438; Henkle v. Dillon, 15 Ore., 610; Smith
V Waggoner, 50 Wis., 155; McClintock v. Graham, 3 McCord (S. C),
-553; Ottoman Woolen Mills Co. v. Hawley, 44 Iowa, 57; Bishop v
bishop, 11 N. Y., 123.
' Citations supra, under § 9; Despatch Line of Packets v. Bellamy
§ 13. J EMBLEMENTS. 13^
1. A tenant for years may remove them at any time-
before he yields possession, although he may be holding
over. But when the landlord has resumed possession the
fixtures become his property, and the tenant's right of
removal is gone.
2. If, on the expiration of his term, the tenant accepts
a new lease, containing no reservation of the right of
removal, he thereby loses his right in the fixtures.
3. Tenants for life or at will, having uncertain inter-
ests in the land, are permitted to remove their fixtures
within a reasonable time, after the terniination of their
tenancy without their own fault.
4. If the term be forfeited by any act of the lessee,,
his assignee or sub-lessee has a reasonable time after such
termination of the lease in which to remove the fixtures. '
2. Emhlements.
§ 13. What are emblements The term is derived
from the JSTorman French word emblear, meaning to sow ;
and, in legal terminology, emblements are the annual
products of the soil, to which the tenant is entitled on
the termination of his estate, as the result of his own
Mfg Co., 13 N. H., 305; Dudley v. Hurst, 67 Md., 44; Scheifele v.
Schmitz, 43 N. J. Eq., 700; Maguire v. Park, 140 Mass., 31 ; Fulling-
ton V. Goodwin, 57 Vt., 641.
' Citations supra, under §g 9 and 10; Meigs' Appeal, 63 Pa. St., 38:
Richard v. Borden, 43 Miss. , 71 ; Eaves v. Estes, 10 Kan. , 314 ; Hol-
brook V. Chamberlin, 116 Mass., 155; Blanche v. Rogers, 36 N. J. Eq.,
563 ; Hutchins v. Masterson, 46 Tex , 551 ; Hederich v. Smith, 103
Ind., 303; Smith v. Park, 31 Minn., 70; Marks v. Ryan, 63 Cal., 107;
Mclver v. Estabrook, 134 Mass., 550; Laughlin v Ross, 45 N. Y., 793;
Darrah v. Baird, 101 Pa. St., 365; Stansfleld v. Portsmouth, 4 C. B.
(N.'S.), 119.
14 EMBLEMENTS. [ § 14.
rightful care and labor. "While outgrowths of the soil,
and hence in their nature part of the realty, emblements
are treated as personal property. The doctrine of
emblements is founded upon the just principle that a
tenant, who cultivates and sows the land with a reason-
able expectation of reaping the harvest, ought to be per-
mitted to enjoy the fruits of his industry. '
§ 14. What products the tenant may remove
They are the annual products of the sowing or planting
and cultivation of the tenant, the" outcome of his own
care and labor. They are characterized by the term
fructus industriales, in contradistinction to fructus
nafufal^g.'~"~SF Si rule, only such products of the soil as
are of annual cultivation arejegarded as emblements;
but to this rule hops are an exception, and for the reason
• that, although the product of perennial roots, they
require annual culture. Cereals and vegetables generally
are included; while products of spontaneous growth,
perennial in their nature and not requiring annua l culti -
vatiQn, such as grasses and trees, are^xcluded?
But, as to what constitutes emblements the common
law may be, and sometimes is, varied by local customs,
and by statutory enactments. The scope of this work
win not permit a reference to such changes. They are
not numerous, and the careful student and practitioner
'Web. Diet. Unab'gd, "Emblement;" And. L. Diet., "Emble-
ments;" Bouv. L. Diet., "Emblements;" Tiede. R. Prop., §§8, 70;
1 Washb. R. Prop., pp. 104, 132-137 ; 1 Seh. Pers. Prop., pp. 136-138 ;
Williams Pers. Prop. (4 Ed.), pp. 17-19, and Am. notes; 4 Kent Com.,
p. 73; Tayl. Land, and Ten , § 534 ; Cooley's Bl., B. II, p. 133, and
notes 3, 4.
■' Citations supra, under g 13; Benj. Sales, §§ 120-138.
§ 15.] EMBLEMENTS. 15
will here, as in all common law cases, examine the stat-
utes and adjudications of his own State.
§ 15. Who, and when, entitled to emblements. —
1. To entitle one to the crops, they must have been
sown and planted by himself, and not by another. Cul-
tivation and CEire of the crops will not alone confer upon
the claimant the right of removal, where the sowing or
planting was done by another. " In such case one may
not reap where another has sown. '
2. The right belongs only to a tenant whose estate
was of uncertain duration. Included in this class are
tenants for life, and their representatives. Tenants at
will, also, have the right; but not tenants for years, or
tenants at sufferance. The distinction between certain
and nncertain tenancies is based upon the doctrine that
it is unwise for the tenant to sow with full knowledge,
or a reasonable probabilitj^, that he cannot reap, by
reason of the termination of his tenancy before the time
of harvest.'
3. As the reason of the rule does not apply to a case
where the estate of the tenant has terminated unexpect-
edly, and without his fault, the rule does not apply.
'Tiede. R. Prop., § 70 ; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 128; 1 Washb: R.
Prop., p. 103; Grantham v. Hawley, Hob,, 132; Gee v. Young,
Hayw., 17; Price v. Pickett, 21 Ala., 741; Thompson v. Thompson, 6
Munf.,514.
' Tiede. R. Prop., §§ 8, 70, 71; Tayl. Land, and Ten., § 534; 3 BI.
Com., pp. 145, 146, 122-134; 4 Kent Com., p. 110; Co. Litt., 56; Chel-
■sey V. Welch, 37 Me., 106; Kittredge v. Woods, 3 N. H , 508; Whit-
marsh V. Cutting, 10 Johns., 360; Graves v. Weld, 5 B. & Ad., 105;
Kingsbury v. Collins, 4 Bingh., 209; Mason v. Moyers, 3 Rob. (Va.),
•606; Morgan v. Morgan, 65 Ga., 495
1 6 EMBLEMENTS. [ § ^ 5.
But if the estate terminates through the fault of the ten-
ant, he loses his right to emblements.'
4. As between the executor of the tenant in fee and the
heir, the former is entitled to the crops if they are ripe
for harvest. And the right to emblements extends to
assignees, and sub-lessees, except when the tenant is
restricted from aliening the land. '
5. When the owner sows the land, and then conveys
it away, the title to the crops passes to the vendee by
the conveyance ; and the vendor's executors and admin-
istrators have no interest in either land or emblements.
So, also, emblements pass by devise of the land, and by
the conveyance of a reversion subject to an existing par-
ticular estate.'
6. A mortgagee, as against the mortgagor and his
grantees, has the paramount right to the emblements.*
But a foreclosure after the crops , are severed carries no
interest in them to the mortgagee or purchaser.' It is
> 1 Soh. Pers. Prop., pp. 127-129; 2 Kent Com., p. 73 ; Tayl. Land,
and Ten., § 535; Debow v. Colfax, 5 Halst., 411 ; Eeeder v. Sager, 70
Id, 180.
' Tiede. R Prop., § 71; Penhallow v. Dwight, 7 Mass., 34; Kingsley
V. Holbrook, 45 N. H., 319; Howe v. Batchelder, 49 N. H., 319; Pat-
tison's Appeal, 61 Pa. St., 29; Doe v. Mace, 7 Black., 2; Tobey v.
Reed, 9 Conn., 216; Cooper v. Davis, 15 Conn., 556; McCall v. Lenox,
9 Serg. & R., 302; Allan v. Carpenter, 15 Mich., 88; Jones v. Thomas,
8 Blackf , 428.
8 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 130; 1 Washb. E. Prop., p. 104; 1 WiUiams
Ex'rs, p. 674; Foote v. Colvin, 8 Johns., 216; Burnside v. Weight-
man, 9 Watts, 46; Cooper v. Woolfitt, 2 Hurl. & N , 122
* Tayl. Land, and Ten., § 537; Tiede. R. Prop , § 71; Lane v. King,
8 Wend., 584; 1 Sch. Pers, Prop., p. 133; 1 Washb. R. Prop., p. 106;
Howell V. Schenck, 4 Gabe, 89.
» 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 133; Buckout v. Swift, 27-Ca]., 438; Coding-
ton V. Johnstone, 1 Beav., 520.
§ 16. J EMBLEMENT!!. 17
held by some authorities that, if tho purchaser under a
foreclosure sale permit the mortgagor, or one claiming
under him, to retain possession and plant crops, the lat-
ter will he entitled to them. ' But, on this point, there
does not seem to be entire unanimity of judicial opinion. '
7. The doctrine of emblements has no application to
the public lands of the United States.'
§ 16. Incidents. — 1. As a rule, the tenant or his
representative, when entitled to emblements, has a right
to enter upon the land after the termination of the ten-
ancy, for the purpose of taking necessary care of the
growing crop, and harvesting and removing it when
ripe. But this right is limited to what is reasonably
requisite for the purposes, and must not be abused.'
2. An agreement for a transfer of the property in
something that is attached to the soil, as growing crops,
or trees, but which is to be severed from the soil before
delivery to the purchaser, is a sale of personal property. "
Z\ Growing crops of the speoies/rt<c^w vndustrialesaxe
subject to levy and sale by execution as personal property .'
' Doe V. Mace, 7 Black., 3; Tobey v. Eeed, 9 Conn., 216; Cooper v.
Davis, 15 Conn., 556; McCall v. Lenox, 9 Serg. & E., 302 ; Jonea v.
Thomas, 8 Blackf., 428.
2 Mayo V. Fletcher, U Pick., 525; Lynde v. Rowe, 13 Allen, 101;
Lane v. King, 8 Wend., 584.
» Rogers v. Williams, 5 Mo., 335; Rasor v. Quails, 4 Blackf., 286.
*Tiede. R. Prop., §70; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 131; 1 Washb. R.
Prop., pp. 105, 136, 137; 1 WiUiams Ex'rs (6 Ed.), p 679; Co. Litt.,
56a; Handson v. Porter, 13 Conn., '59; Forsythe v. Price, 8 Watts,
383; Humphries v. Humphries, 3 Ired., 363.
5 Benj. on Sales (Ed. 18-8), § 118, and Am. Notes to §§111-133.
» Smith's Sherf. and Cons., pp. 333, 324; Caldwell v. Fifield, 24 N. J.
L., 150; Parham v. Thompson, 3 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.), 306; Craddock v.
2
18 HEIE-LOOMS, [ § 1^-
3. Seir-looms
§ 17. Character and law of, defined. — Law writers
and philologists do not agree as to the etymology of the
word heir-loom. By some it is thought to be composed
of ' ' heir ' ' and ' ' loom, ' ' the latter word originally mean-
ing a loom to weave in, which descended to the heir ;
and that the composite, by use and accommodation, has
grown to embrace many other things. Others regard
the termination loom as of Saxon origin, in which lan-
guage it signified a lirrib or member, giving to heir-loom
the signification of a hmb or member of the inheritance.
Others, stiU, derive loom from the Saxon ' ' loma, ' ' or
' ' geloma, ' ' which signifies household stuff, and this with
the English word heir makes heir-loom, meaning such
utensils and other things as go to the heir. '
The etymology, however, is of very little practical
importance. Heir-looms are a species of property, per-
sonal in their nature, which, by force of special custom,
or because they are essential to the completeness and
full enjoyment of the freehold, are treated as real
property, and descend to the heirs with the inheritance. '
In respect of usefulness to the enjoyment of the free-
hold, heir-looms rest upon the same basis of reason as
the class of fixtures which are not physically annexed to
Riddlesbarger, 3 Dana (Ky.), 206: Penhallow v. Dwight, 7 Mass., 34 ;
Hart well V. Bissell, 17 Johns., 128; Hare v Pearson, 4 Ired. (N. C),
L., 76; Shannon v. Jones, Id , 206 ; Salsbury v. Parsons, 43 Hun, 12;
Favorite v. DeardoflE, 84 Ind., 555.
' Bouv. L. Diet "Heir-loom;" And. L. Diet., "Heir-loom;" Webster's
Diet, (unab'gd), "Heir-loom;" 1 Seh. Pers. Prop., p. 117; 2 Blaek.
Com., p. 428.
• Cooley's Bl., B. H, pp. 427-439, n (9); Williams Pers. Prop., pp.
18, 14; 1 Seh! Pers. Prop., pp. 117-122; Co. Litt. 185.
§ 17. J HEIE-LOOMS. 19
the soil ; and the fact that the same things are, by some
text-writers, assigned to both kinds of property indis-
criminately, and without explanation, tends to confusion
in the minds of students.
As examples of heir-looms mentioned in text-books
are, among other things, ancient jewels of the British
crown; the coat of arms of an ancestor hung in the
church, and his sword and insignia of rank; ancient
portraits and family pictures in a house; conies in a
warren, and doves in a dove-cote; fish in an artificial
pond ; deeds and other muniments of title, together with
the chest or box in which they have usually been kept ;
and the keys of a house.
It win be noticed that some of these things are also
classed with fixtures by text-writers. They are classed
with heir-looms for the same reason that they are treated
as fixtures, namely, on account of their special relation
and importance to the free-hold ; while those not placed
in both classes are regarded in law as heir-looms in obedi-
ence to special custom. Among these are some things
not essential to the fuU enjoyment of the free-hold.'
It may be noticed in passing that heir-looms do not pass
by devise or bequest, separate from the freehold ; and
this for the reason that a will does not take effect tiU
after the death of testator ; whereas the realty, including
everything that goes with the land, passes to the heir
simultaneously with the passing of the breath from the
body of decedent, vests instantaneously in the heir, and
thus takes precedence of the devise or bequest.'
' See ciliations «wpra,yyaAsx § 17.
» 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 118; 2 Black. Com., p. 429; Co. litt. 185 6;
1 Williams Ex'rs (6 Eng. Ed.), 681.
20 MANUEE. [ § 18.
4. Manure.
§ 18. When real, and when personal, property —
As a general rule, in this country, manure made upon
the farm by consumption of its products is real property.
And, in the interest of good husbandry, which requires
that manure made from the products of the land shall be
used to renew and enrich the soil, the rule has been
established that, when a farm is leased for agricultural
purposes, the manure made upon it the last year of the
term shall be left by the out-going tenant. Local or
neighborhood custom may, however, affect the question
in some cases ; but with no particular agreement in such
leases in regard to the manure, it belongs to the farm,
and not to the tenant. He has no right to remove it, or
dispose of it to others, so that it shall not be used on the
farm. But, if the manure be made from products pur-
chased elsewhere and brought to the land by the tenant,
as in case of a livery stable, it is personal property, and
belongs to the tenant with the right of removal ; and is
subject to aU the incidents of personal property. '
It is held in one case that, manure left in the street
belongs originally to the owners of the animals that
dropped it, but is to be regarded as abandoned property.
Being abandoned property, the first taker has a right to
'Tiede. R. Prop., §2; Tayl. Land, and Ten., §541; McCall Real
Prop., p. 90; Bouv. L. Diet., "Manure;" Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill,
142; Parsons v. Camp, 11 Conn., 525; Perry v Carr, 44 N. H , 122;
Fay V. Muzzy, 13 Gray, 53; Witherby v. Ellison, 19 Vt., 379; Middle-
brook v. Corwin, 15 Wend., 169; Daniels v. Pond, 1 Pick., 371; Las-
sell V. Reed, 6 Greenl., 322; Lewis v. Jones, 5 Harris, 226 ; Snow v.
Perkins, 60 N. H., 493; s c, 49 Am. Rep., 333; Plumer v. Plumer, 30
N. H., 558 ; And. L. Diet., "Manure."
§ 19.] CHTJEOH FUEimUEE. 21
appropriate it ; and after one has gathered it into heaps
he must be regarded as entitled to it, against any person
having no title, and must be allowed a reasonable time
to take it away. It cannot be regarded as real estate. '
5. Church Furniture.
§ 19. Law of this species of property As a general
rule, both in England and in this country, pews are
regarded as part of the realty. But in some of, our
States they are made personal property by statute."
The pew-holder has, as a rule, the exclusive right to
occupy his pew ; and he may maintain an action of tres-
pass against any one who, without lawful authority, dis-
turbs him in his seat.' But, as against the society or
cor])oration, the interest of the pew-holder in his pew is
not absolute, but qualified and conditional. It is usu-
fructuary merely, consisting in the right of occupancy
upon occasions of public worship.* The right of occu-
' Halsen v. Lockwood, 37 Conn., 500.
'.Cooley's Bl. B. II., p 439 n. (2); 1 Washb. R. Prop., p. 9; 2 Pottpr
Corp., § 603; Bouv. L Diet , "Real property," sub. 6. and "Pews:" 1
Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 158, 1.^9: Baptist Ch. v. Bigelow, 16 Wend., 28;
Viele V. Osgood, 8 Barb., 130; St. Paul's Ch v. Ford. 34 Barb., 16;
Bates V. Soarrell, 10 Mass., 832; Hodges v: Green, 28 Vt., 358; And.
L. Diet., "Church," "Pew."
'Gray v. Baker, 17 Mass , 435;' Gorton v. Hadsell, 9 Cush., 508;
Shaw V Beveridge, 3 Hill, 26; O'Hear v. Goesbriand, 33 Vt., 593, and
citations last supra.
* Wheaton v. Gates, .18 N. Y., 895; Cooper v. Presb. Ch.. 32 Barb.,
222; White v. Methodist Epis. Ch., 3 Lans., 477; Abernethy v. Ch of
the Puritans, 3 Daly-, 1; Howe v. Stevens, 47 Vt., 263; Sohier v.
Trinity Ch., 109 Mass., 1; Union Meeting House v. Rowell. 66 ile.,
400; Gay v. Baker, 17 Mass., 435; Daniel v. Wood. 1 Pick., 102; Kim-
ball v. Rowley, 24 Pick., 347; Presb. Ch. v. Andrus, 1 Zabr., 325;
22 MOETUAET PEOPiCETT. [ § 20.
pancy must yield to circumstances of necessity or expedi-
ency, growing out of the rights in common of the
society; and if the trustees, or other authorized officials,
make such changes in the edifice as the necessities or
interests of the society demand, and thereby destroy the
owner's pew, he must be content with adequate compen-
sation.' But, it would seem, that, should the church
edifice become useless by dilapidation or other cause, and
have to be rebuilt, the right of. the pew-holder to his
pew, and to compensation as well, would be gone."
Bells, organs, furnaces, stoves and pipes, may, by
their use or placing, become real property or fixtures. '
6. Mortuary Property.
§ 20. Kinds, legal rules, and l)urial rights. — The
grant of a burial lot in a churchyard, or public cemetery,
though in terms a conveyance of the fee, is, generally,
an easement merely. It wiU be protected from disturb-
ance, and the rights of the owner for burial purposes
secured to him, while the place continues to be used as a
burial ground, but the grant of a burial lot in a church-
Kincaid's Appeal, 66 Pa. St., 411; Ex parte Brick Presb. Ch., 3 Edw.
Ch. 155.
' Wentworth v. First Parish, 3 Pick., 344; Cooper v. Presb. Ch.,
33 Barb., 223; Heeney v. St. Peter's Ch., 2 Edw. Ch 608 ; Fassett v.
Boylston, 19 Pick., 361; Jones v. Towne. 58 N. H., 462.
' Voorhes v. Presb. Ch., 17 Barb., 103; Howard v. First Parish, 7
Pick., 138; Van Houten v. Reformed Dutch Ch., 2 Green. (N. J.),
126; KeUogg V. Dickinson, 18 Vt., 266; Gorton -7. HadseU, 9 Cush.,
508.
' 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 159: Congregational Society v, Fleming, \t
Iowa, 533; Rogers v. Crow, 40 Miss., 91.
§ 20. J MOETUAET PEOPEETT. 23
yard will not empower the grantee to prevent a sale of
the church property ; and in all cases his right must yield
to public necessity.'
Yaults and monuments erected upon a lot in a public
cemetery, and decorations of the grave, are the personal
property of the holder of the lot, and he may remove the
same at his pleasure.'
"While a corpse, in the strict sense of the common law,
is not the subject of property, there is in it a quasi prop-
erty which confers upon the relatives of the deceased the
rights of custody and control ; which rights the courts
will protect. And the person having charge of the body
holds it as a sacred trust for the benefit of all who may,
from family ties or friendship, have an interest in it;
which trust a court of equity wiU regulate and enforce. *
The doctrine is quite generally laid down in the books,
without qualification, that in the absence of any testa-
mentary directions on the part of the deceased, the right,
and place, of burial belongs exclusively to the next of
kin.* If, by the term " next of kin," as thus used, hus-
band and wife are to be excluded, it may well be doubted
whether there should not be a qualification of the broadly
' Richardson v. Dutch Ch., 33 Barb., 43; Ex parte Reformed Presb.
Ch.', 7 How. Pr. R , 476; Windt v. German Reformed Ch., 4 Sandf.
Ch., 471; Page v. Symonds, 63 N. H., 17 ; Buffalo City Cemetery v.
Buffalo, 46 N.y., 503.
« Partridge v. First, etc., Ch., 39 Md., 631; Kincaid's Appeal, 66
Pa St., 411;-Snyder v. Snyder, 60 How. Pr., R. 368.
» Griffith v. Charlotte, etc , R. R. Co., 23 S. C, 25; s. c. 55 Am.
Rep. 1; Guthrie V. Weaver, 1 Mo. App., 136; Pierce v. Proprietors,
etc., 10 R. I., 227; Snyder v, Snyder, supra ; Bogert v. Indianapolis,
13 Ind., 134.
*Law of "Burial," 4 Bradf. Surr. R., 503-532; And. L. Diet.,
24 MOETUAKT PEOPEETT. [ § 20.
stated doctrine in their favor.' In case of disagreement
among relatives in regard to the burial, the court wiU
determine the matter upon equitable grounds.'
"Burial;" Tyler's Ecc. Law, § 971; Moak's Eng. Eep , vol. 12, p. 656;
Wynkoop v. Wynkoop, 43 Pa. St., 293; Rosseau v. City of Troy, 49
How. Pr. R., 492.
' Johnston V. Marinus, 18 Abb., N. C, 72, and Appendix to same,
p. 75; Secor v. Secor, 18 Abb. N C, 78, n ; Snyder v. Snyder, supra.
' Weld V. Walker, 130 Mass., 422; s. c. 39 Am. E., 465; Peters v.
Peters, 43 N. J. Eq., 140; Snyder v. Snyder, supra.
§ 21. J CHATTELS, REAL, AND PEESONAL. 25
CHAPTER lY.
NOMENCLATURE, AND SUBORDINATE DIVISIONS, OF PER-
SONAL PROPERTY.
Section 21. Chattels, real, and personal.
22. Choses in possession; choses in action.
23. Estate, real and personal.
24. Goods, wares, merchandise, effects, credits.
25. Personal property in expectancy.
§ 21. Chattels, real, and personal. — The term chat-
tel, according to Blackstone, is derived from the techni-
cal Latin word catella, which primarily signified beasts
of • husbandry, cattle ; but which, by accommodation, has
a wider application, including every species of property
which is not real estate, or a freehold.
It is a fact of historic interest to the student, that
anciently property was not, as at present, nominally
divided into real and personal, but into lands, tenements,
and hereditaments on the one hand, and goods and chattels
on the other. This division and nomenclature was the
outgrowth of the feudal system ; and it will be remem-
bered that, under the proprietary rights and social con-
ditions of that system, goods and chattels were regarded
as constituting an inferior, and a comparatively unim-
portant, class of .property.
In the course of time certain estates and mterests in
land grew up which had no existence under the ancient
feudal system ; notably, leases for years. To these the
feudal rules concerning the realty did not apply ; and.
26 OHOSES IN POSSESSION, ETC. [ § 22.
moreover, being regarded as inferior in character and
value to lands held under the feudal tenure, they were
assigned to the rank and class of goods and chattels.
But, as leases for years, and other interests of a like
nature, are in fact interests in land, they are denominated
chattels real, to distinguish them from property personal
in its nature, all species of which are embraced in the
term chattels personal.
Chattels real, then, may be defined briefly as such
interests as are annexed to, or concern, real estate;
chattels personal, such things as are movable, annexed to
or attend the person of the owner. It will be seen that
the present general division of property is into real, and
personal; and that the term chattel is equivalent to
the term personal property, including every species of
property not embraced in the division termed indifferently
real property , or real estate.^
% 22. Choses in possession ; choses in action. — The
word ' ' chose, ' ' which is a contribution from the French,
means a thing ; and in our law it is applied to personal
property. According to Blackstone, a chose or thing
in possession ' ' subsists there only, where a man hath both
the right, and also the occupation, of the thing ;" while a
chose or thing in action, is " where a man hath not the
occupation, but merely a bare right to occupy the thing
in question; the possession whereof may however be
recovered by a suit or action at law ; from whence the
thing so recoverable is called a thing or chose in action. ' '
Mr. Schouler, in his learned treatise on personal prop-
' 2 Black Com. p. 385; 2 Kent Com. p. 341; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop. pp.
39, 45; Williams' Pers. Prop. p. 2; Bouv. L. Diet. " Chattels."
§ 22. J CHOSKS IN POSSESSION, ETC. 27
erty, suggests that these terms are calculated to mislead ;
that "they do not intend just what they appear to
express;" and that Blackstone "confounds two senses
of the word ' property, ' the one signifying the thing
possessed, the other the right of possessing. ' ' He thinks
a general division of property into things corporeal and
things incorporeal would be preferable to the ordinary
classification of the common law. However this may
be, the classification generally adopted, and thoroughly
incorporated into the law of personal property, is suffi-
ciently accurate for the purpose, and quite consonant
with the plan, of this work, which is to present a clear
and succinct statement of the law as generally laid down
by text writers, and recognized by the courts ; and not
to make law, or to enter upon philosophical discussion. -
Adopting, then, the ordinary divisions and nomencla-
ture, choses in possession are things in which the right of
property, and the occupancy, unite in the same person ;
while choses in action are things in which a person has
the right of property, but not the occupancy, possession
being recoverable by an action at law ; hence the signifi-
cance of the designation, choses m action.
The latter division covers a broad field, including a
great variety of subjects of personal property. ' ' It
embraces," says Chancellor Kent, " the most diif use, and
in this commercial age, the most useful learning of the
law. By far the greater part of the questions arising in
the intercourse of social life, or which are litigated in
the courts of justice, are to be referred to this head of
personal rights." '
» 1 Black Com. p. 397; 3 Kent Com. p. 351; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop. pp. 33-
■28 ESTATE, EEAL AND PERSONAL. [ § 23.
§ 23. Estate, real and personal. — The term "estate,"
— in Latin sto^ws, — is derived from sta/re, to stand, meaning
the fixed condition of anything or person. Applied to
law, it signifies the condition or circumstances in which
the owner stands in relation to his property. The term
' ' estate ' ' is properly applicable only to real property. It is
indigenous to the feudal system, under which absolute
■ownership is unknown, an estate being aU that can be
held or enjoyed by the tenant.
By the English common law, aU lands were held,
•either mediately or immediately of the crown, the king
being called lord paromiount. This is, in brief, the
feudal tenure, by which all lands in England are held ;
but which, with few exceptions, does not exist in the
United States. True, it is maintained by jurists of
repute, that there cannot be an absolute ownership of
lands in any system of jurisprudence, and that in this
■country the ultimate absolute ownership vests in the
:state. On the other hand, it is insisted hj high authority
that, while in the United States lands pass to the state
in case of forfeiture and escheat, this does, not constitute
the feudal relation proper, but results from the attributg
■of sovereignty in the body politic.
In this country, generally, lands are allodial, not
feudal in character or tenure.
The distinction between the two systems is, in brief,
this : under the feudal tenure, the absolute ownership of
land, the dominium, directum, is in one man, while the
.actual possession and profitable use, the dominium utile,
40, 76, 86; Bouv. L. Diet. " Choses in Action ;" Williams' Pers. Prop.
;pp. 4^1, 63; Pom. Mun. Law, §§ 779-781.
§ 24.] ESTATE, GOODS, WARES, ETC. 29'
is in another; whereas, under the allodial system the
ownership and use, the dominium directum and the
dominium utile, unite in the same person.
While, however, the term ' ' estate, ' ' in its original
and proper use, applies only to real property, it is fre-
quently employed to designate personal property.
Especially is this true in testamentary instruments and
law, and in bankrupt and insolvent law. "All my
estate, real and personal," is a phrase often found in
wills, and sometimes in other written instruments. The
term "estate" alone is sometimes used to cover both
real and personal property ; and sometimes to cover real,
or personal, property only ; depending in each case upon
intention, which must be sought by the rules of interpre-
tation and construction.
As, under the feudal system, estates or interests in
land may be absolute or qualified, so when the term
"estate" is applied to personal property, it may repre-
sent an absolute, or a qualified interest.'
§ 24. Goods, wares, merchandise, effects, credits
The word "goods" applies to personal property, and
when not joined to other substantives, is generally held
to be more limited in its scope than the word "chattels,"
embracing inanimate objects only. It should be noticed,
however, that in wills it may embrace all the personal
property of the testator, animate and inanimate, corporeal
or incorporeal ; depending for scope and significance in
' Bouv. L. Diet. " Estate," "Allodium;" WiUiams' Pers Prop. pp.
7, 8, 259, 206; Pom. Mun. Law. §§ 378-385, 484, 485, 842, 843; Tied.
Eeal. Prop. §§ 19, 25; 8 Kent Com. pp. 513, 514; Goodeve Pers. Prop,
p. 3; Dayt. Surr. p. 233; Van Rensselaer v. Dennison, 35 N. Y., 393.
30 WAEBS, EFFECTS, OEEDITS. [ § 24.
every case upon the context and construction of the
instrument.
The terms " wares " and " merchandise," when stand-
ing by themselves, require no explanation. In the Eng-
lish Statute of Frauds the phrase ' ' goods, wares, and
merchandises ' ' is employed, and like words are found in
our American statutes. As thus employed, these terms
have been under judicial consideration, both in England
and in this country ; and the result shows some contra-
riety of judicial interpretation. While generally held to
be very comprehensive in their scope, embracing all cor-
poreal movable property, these terms, it is held by some
courts, do not embrace all kinds of personal property.
The' prevailing doctrine of the English authorities is,
that these words comprehend only corporeal movable
property ; while the American authorities generally adopt
a more liberal construction, including incorporeal prop-
erty, choses in action, as well. But the courts in our
States are not in full accord in regard to the interpreta-
tion of this statutory phrase.'
The term ' ' effects ' ' is often used to designate personal
property, and generally has a broader signification than
the term ' ' goods. " In a wUl it may carry the whole of
a testator's personal estate, depending upon intention as
determined by judicial construction.
The word ' ' credits ' ' applies to debts due, money
demands, and to aU choses in action.'
' Bouv. L. Diet. " Goods," " Merchandise," " EflEects," " Credits;"
1 Sch. Pers. Prop. pp. 39, 40, 86, 87; Benj. on Sales, pp. 105, 118; Am.
Notes, §§ 111-133; Bishop Con. (Enl. Ed.) § 1315; 3 Pars. Con. (7 Ed.)
pp. 49-51.
§ 25.] • m EXPEOTANOY. 31
§ 35. Personal property in expectancy. — Contrary to
the ancient common law doctrine, it is now well estab-
lished that there may be an interest in expectancy in per-
sonal property That is to say, one person may have
the right of possession and the usufruct for a term of
years, or for life, while another at the same time has a
reversion or remainder in the same property.
It should be noticed, however, that the rule against
perpetuities is made applicable to personal property.
The subject is regulated by statute in some of our States.
For instance, New York has the following provision :
"The absolute ownership of personal property shaU not
be suspended by any limitation or condition whatever,
for a longer period than during the continuance and until
the termination of not more than two lives in being at'
the date of the instrimient containing such limitation or
condition ; or if such instrument be a wiU, for not more
than two lives in being at the death of the testator. ' ' '
' Sch. 1 Pers. Prop. pp. 161-185; Williams' Pers. Prop. pp. 260-262,
and n. 1; 2 Kent Com. pp. 353-354; R. S. of N. Y. (Banks & Bro. 8
Ed.) vol. rV, p. 2516.
32 JOINT OWNERS. [ § 26.
CHAPTEE Y.
PERSONAL PROPERTY, HOW HELD OR OWNED.
Section 26. Joint owners.
27. Ownership in common.
28. Part-owners of ships.
29. Partners.
30. Corporations.
31. Joint-stock companies.
§ 26. Joint owners. — Ownership in severalty requires
no discussion, the expression itself being plainly sig-
nificant, and fully characteristic. Joint ownership is
more complicated in its nature. It exists where two or
more are joined in the ownership of the same property
by fqjir unities, namely, title, time, interest, and pos-
session. Unity of title signifies that the title of all the
joint owners accrued under one and the same instrument,
or was created by the same act on the part of the vendor
or donor. Unity of time requires that the interest of
each should have vested at the same moment. Unity of
interest imphes that the interest of each in the property
is the same in quantity, and for the same duration. Unity
of possession means that each of the owners has an undi-
vided possession of each entire part, and also of the
whole. In ancient technical expression, each is possessed
'■'■ fer my et per tout.''^ But as to unity of time, the case
of joint ownership created by will is an exception.
To the relation of joint ownership, thus created, cer-
tain important rules appertain, which must not be over-
looked.
§ 26.] .lOI-XT OWXKKS. 33
First. The right of survivorship, the jus accrescendi.
That is, in case of the death of one joint owner, the sur-
vivor or survivors "will take the entire interest in the
property, unaffected by any disposition the deceased joint
owner may have made by his will, if there had been no sev-
erance of the joint ownership in the lifetime of the parties.
To the right of survivorship, however, an exception
has been made in favor of trade and agriculture, in cases
of partnership and joint undertaking in these branches
of commerce and industry, in which cases the interest of
a deceased joint owner vests in his executors or adminis-
trators.
The operation of survivorship in diverting the interest of
a deceased owner from his next of kin, to whom it natur-
ally belongs, is generally regarded as unreasonable and
unjust, and hence is not favored by courts or legislatures.
Numerous statutes have been passed providing in effect,
that where property is given or sold, granted or devised,
to two' or more persons without words expressly, or by
necessary implication, creating a joint tenancy or owner-
ship, it shall be held to constitute a tenancy or owner-
ship in common, rather than a joint tenancy or owner-
ship. And, in the absence of legislation on the subject,
courts generally incline to a construction of instruments
that will establish a tenancy or ownership in common,
in preference to a joint tenancy or ownership.
But the doctrine of survivorship is well adapted to ex-
ecutors, administrators, trustees, and others acting in a
fiduciary capacity, who have the legal title, biit no equit-
able interest in the property ; and hence they are gener-
ally held and treated as joint owners.
3
34 JOINT OWNEES. [ § 26.
Second. As between themselves, each of the joint
owners is entitled to an equal share of the rents, income,
and profits, during his life ; and, as a logical result of this
rule, if one receives more than his share, the others have
an action against him to recover the excess.
Thi/rd. From the unity of possession, each owner
having an undivided possession of each part as well as of
the whole, it follows that the possession of one is the
possession of all. Hence the rule, that one cannot main-
tain an action against his co-owner for the possession ;
but in case of a wrongful conversion of the property by
one, the others may maintain an action against him
for damages.
Fourth. Joint ownership in personal property may
be severed by agreement of the parties, by act of one in
disposing of his interest, by a decree of a court of
equity, and, as some authorities hold, by levy and sale
of the interest of one under an execution ; but as to the
latter mode of severance there might, in some cases, be
serious practical difficulty as each joint owner is entitled
to the possession of the whole property. In case of
more than two joint owners of the same property, if the
interest of one pass to a third party, the latter will
become an owner in common, to the extent of such
interest, with the remaining joint owners, who wiU
continue joint owners as between themselves. '
' WiUiams' Pers. Prop. pp. 303-306; 1 Sph. Pers. Prop. pp. 186-193,
195; 3 Bl. Com. p. 399; 2 Kent Com. p. 351; 4 Id. pp. 363, 364; Davis v.
Lottich, 46 N. Y., 393; VanDoren v. Baity, 11 Hun, 339; Anderson v.
Sohulze, 64 Wis., 460; Gates v. Fraser, 9 Dl. App., 634; Taylor v. CoX,
3 B. Mon (Ky.), 439; Southworth v. Smith, 37 Conn., 355; Terrell v.
Martin, 64 Tex., 131; Franklin Sav. Inst. v. People's Sav. Bank, 14 E.
§ 27.J OWNERSHIP IN COMMON. 35
§ -iT. Ownership in common. — In analogy to a ten-
ancy in common of real estate, ownership of personal
property is constituted by one unity, that of possession.
Some or all the other unities essential to joint ownership,
title, time, and interest, may be wanting; yet, if the
several parties in interest have a united possession they
are owners in common, or, as the relation is generally
exjpressed, tenants in common. The titles of the respec-
tive owners may have come from different sources, and
have vested at different times, and their interests may be
unequal, stUl, if united in possession, they will be tenants
in common ; but, in the absence of this unity, whatever
else their relations or interests may be, they will not be
owners in common, for unity of possession is absolutely
essential to this kind of ownership. The owners are
interested, in legal technics, '^per tout, et non per my,^^
each in contemplation of law, having a separate owner-
ship in the whole of his own share whatever it may be,
and not, as in joint tenancy, an undivided interest in
each part as well as in the whole. The unity of posses-
sion consists in a combination of the respective units of
the several owners, the share of each measuring his
interest in the common property.
The doctrine of survivorship does not apply to owner-
ship in common, but on the death of one his interest
passes to his executors or administrators."
I., 632; Waldman v. Broder, 10 Cal., 378; Buck v. SpoflEord, 31 Me..
34; Brinley V. Kupper, 6 Pick., 179; Stone v. Aldrich, 43 N. H., 53;
Postell V. Skirling, Desaus. (S. C.) Eq., 158.
' 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 193, et seq.; Williams' Pers. Prop., p. 306 ;
Will. Real Est., pp., 184, 185; Beaumont v. Crane, 14 Mass., 400;
Knox V. Campbell, 1 Pa. St., 866; Welch v. Sackett, 12 Wis., 343;
36 OWNEKSHIP IN COMMON, [ § 27.
,.;' The principal incidents of ownership in common are :
i First. The possession of one is the possession of all,
and aU are equally entitled to possession. '
Second. One cannot maintain an action against his co-
tenant to recover possession of the common property ;
but he may have an action of tort against him for its
conversion or destruction. "
Third. The interest of one is subject to levy and sale
by execution for his debts; but if the officer sell the
whole property, and not merely the interest of the judg-
ment debtor, he wiU be liable to an action by the other
co-owner for his undivided interest.
Fourth. One owner in common of chattels may recover
from another any money properly expended on it beyond
his due proportion ; but there must have been a previous
request to join in making the necessary repairs, unless
there exist some agreement or prescription binding either
party exclusively to make repairs. '
Fifth. Where personal property in common bulk and
of the same quality, severable in its nature, is owned by
two or more persons in common, each may sever and
Btessing v. House, 3 Gill. & J., 390; Brown v. Graham, 34 HI., 638;
Berneoker v. MiUer, 40 Mo., 473.
' References last supra; Williams v. Watkins, 3 Pet., 51; Strong v.
Colter, 13 Minn., 83; Southworth v. Smith, 37 Conn., 355.
' Dain v. Cowing, 33 Me., 347; Leonard v. Scarborough, 3 Ga., 73;
Weld V. Oliver, 31 Pick., 559; White v. Brooks, 43 N. H., 403; Hyde
V. Stone, 9 Cow., 330; Potter* v. Neal, 63 How. Pr. E., 158; Agnew v,
Johnson, 17 Pa. St., 373; Needham v. Hill, 137 Mass., 183 ; Davis v.
Lottich, 46N. Y., 893.
' Loring v. Bacon, 4 Mass., 575; Carter v. Miller, Id., 559; Converse
V. Ferre, 11 Mass., 385; Doane v. Badger, 13 Id., 65; Gardner v.
Clevelar>d, 9 Pick., 334; Peyton v. Smith, Dev. & B. (N. C), L., 335.
§ 28. J tAET OWNERS OF SHIPS. 37
appropriate his share if it can be determined by measure-
ment or weight, without the consent of the others, and
without liability to an action for the conversion of the
common property.'
Sixth. Owners in common of personal property may
maintain a suit in equity for partition ; and in case a
division be impracticable,, they may have a decree for the
sale of the common property, and a .division of the
proceeds."
§ 28. Part-owners of ships A ship is a personal
chattel ; and when owned by two or more parties, they
holil a peculiar relation to each other in respect of the
joint property, characterized in the law as "part-own-
ers." They are not classed with joint owners, tenants
in common, or as partners. Generally, however, they
are owners in common of the ship, and partners in the
in iritime enterprises in which the vessel is engaged.
But they may be, and sometimes are, partners in the
ship as well. Partners may own a ship as partnership
property; and persons not general partners may, by
agreement, become owners as partners of a particular
ship. • In the absence of these conditions, they are not
regarded in law as either partners, or, technically, ten-
ants in common, but part-owners.
• Forbes v. Shattuck, 33 Barb., 568; Tripp v. Eiley, 15 Id., 333;
Cannon v. Lusk, 3 Lans., 311; Stall v Wilbur, 77 N. Y., 158.
2 Godfrey v. White, 60 Mich., 443; Tripp v. Riley, supra, 833, 336;
Tinney v. Stebbins, 38 Barb,, 390; Wetmore v, Zabriskie, 39 N. J.
Eq., 63; Crapster v. Griffith,. 3 Bland, 535; Smith v. Smith, 4 R.md.,
95; Kerley v. Clay, 4 Bibb., 341; Marshall v. Crow's Adni'r, 39 Ala ,
378; Conover v. Earl, 36 Iowa, 167; 3 Pom. Eq., § 1391; Potter Will.
Eq., r. 705.
38 PAETNEES. [ § 29.
In respect to third parties, the several part-owners of
a ship are but one owner ; and hence in actions of con-
tract by and against them, all should be joined. But if
torts be committed by several, an action for damages
may be maintained against a part or aU of them, at the
pleasure of the injured party. '
§ 29. Partners. — Chancellor Kent defines partnership
thus : "Partnership is a contract of two or more compe-
tent persons, to place their money, effects, labor and
skill, or some, or all of them, in lawful commerce or
business, and to divide the profit, and bear the loss, in
certain proportions." In the judgment of the writer no
better definition of partnership has been, or need be,
formulated. Other definitions by , approved authors,
differing somewhat in expression, are substantially the
same in effect.'
The leading characteristics, and ordinary features, of
a partnership are, a community of interest for business
purposes in the stock and profit of the firm, and a shar-
ing of profit and loss. "While community of interest in
the stock or profit is essential to a partnership, commun-
ity in the property does not, in itself, constitute a part-
nership ; for such a community exists in other relations,
' Pars. Part, pp., 549-577; 3 Kent Com., p. 152, et seg.; 1 Sch. Pers
Prop., p. 350, et seq.; 3 Coll. on Part., pp. 1169-1197; Abb. Ship. (Ed.
1854), pp. 1, et seq., and 137, et seq.; Bishop Non-Con. L., §§ 927, 938:
Mumford V. Nicoll, 30 Johns., 611; Merrill v. Bartlett, 6 Pick., 46;
Holderness v. Shaokels, 8 B. & C, 613; Rex v Collector, 3 M. & S.,
223; Bulkley V. Barker, 6 Ex., 164; Robertson v. Smith, 18 Johns.,
459; Bower v. Stoddard, 10 Met., 375.
' 3 Kent Com., p. 34; Pars. Part., p. 6; Coll. on Part. (Wood's Ed.),
§ 2; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 205.
§ 29.] PAETNEES. 39
as, for example, in joint and common ownership. And
there may be a sharing in the profits of a business as a
compensation for services rendered by a person who is
not a partner ; the ascertained profit of the firm being a
fund from which such compensation is derived, and his
share the measure of the same.
There are other qualifications and rules touching the
creation and test of a partnership, but their discussion in
this connection is forbidden by the limitations of the
plan and scope of the work in hand ; the purpose here
being to briefly explain the ownership of personal prop-
erty by partners. '
Partners are joint tenants or owners of their stock in
trade and effects, but without the right of survivorship ;
and on a dissolution of the partnership they become
tenants in common of the partnership property.
The death of one partner is, ipso faoto, a dissolution
of the partnership; and thereupon his interest in the
concern passes to his personal representatives, who
become tenants or owners in common with the survivors.
It should be added, however, that on the death of one,
the survivors have the exclusive right to the possession
of the partnership property, and the management of the
business, for the purpose of closing up the same, paying
the firm debts, and adjusting the equities between them-
selves and the deceased partner. The survivors become
' Pars. Part , pp. 43-45, 67 ; Coll. on Part. (Wood's Ed.), § 2, and
notes; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 210; Mason v. Hackett, 4 Nev., 420;
Atherton v. Tilton. 44 N. H., 452; Buckle v. Eckhart, 3 N. Y., 182;
Leggett V. Hyde, 58 Id., 272; Hanna v. Flint, 14 Cal., 73 ; Parker v.
Fergus, 43 111., 437.
40 PAETNEES, [ § 29.
the trustees of the property, and in its administration
are subject to the rules applicable to that class of fidu-
ciaries. The interest of the deceased partner will be the
residue of his share after payment of partnership debts,
and adjustment of the equities. '
Real estate, bought with partnership funds, and used
for partnership purposes, is treated in equity as personal
property, and is subject to the same rules as other per-
sonal assets of the firm. But, after paying partnership
debts and adjusting the : equities between the partners,
what becomes of the residue, if any ? Does it retain the
impress of personalty, and pass to- executors and admin-
istrators for the benefit of the next of kin, or does it
resume its original and intrinsic character as real estate,
and descend to heirs? The authorities disclose a dis-
agreement between the English and American doctrine
on this point ; the former holding that when once con-
verted into personalty for partnership purposes, it so
remains and passes to personal representatives for the
benefit of the next of kin; while, by the weight of
authority, in this country, it resumes its true charactei* of
real estate, and descends to heirs."
Each partner is the agent of aU, and has full authority
to bind the others by his acts and contracts relating to
the business of the firm. He may sell, assign, and
' Pars. Part., pp. 438-447; 1 Soh. Pers. Prop., p. 335; 3 Kent Com.,
p. 37; CoU. on Part. CWood's Ed.), §§ 633, 634.
' Pars. Part., pp. 369-373; Essex v. Essex, 30 Beav., 443 ; Derby v.
Derby, 3 Drew., 495; Ripley v. "Waterworth, 7 Ves., 435; Bonner v.
Campbell, 48 Pa. St., 386; Brewer v. Browne, 68 Ala., 310; Shanks v.
Klein, 104 U. S., 18; Rice v. Barnard, 30 Vt., 479; Buohan v. Sumner,
2 Barb. Ch., 165.
§ 29.] PARTNERS. 41
transfer partnership property in the regular business of
the partnership, and for the payment of the firm debts.
But in regard to the authority of one partner to make a
general assignment of all the partnership property for
the benefit of creditors, without the knowledge or con-
sent of his co-partners, there is some contrariety of
judicial opinion; the weight, however, seems to be
against such authority, especially where preferences are
made. '
The interest of each partner in the tangible partnership
property is liable to sale by execution for payment of his
individual debts ; and the purchaser on such sale becomes
a tenant or owner in common with the other partners.
But partnership property must first be applied to the
payment of the partnership debts, and the adjustment of
partnership equities ; and, hence, a purchaser on a sale
at the instance of an individual creditor, will take only
the interest of the judgment debtor remaining after the
payment of such debts, and an adjustment of equities
between the partners."
' Pai-s. Part., pp. 95, IDS, 16a-169, 170 et seg.; Coll. on Part. fWood's
Ed.), g§ 641-644; Stoi^ Agen., § 37; Bouv. L. Diet., "partners," sub.
9, et seq.; Pettee v. Orser, 18 How. Pr. R , 442 ; Fisher v. Murray, 1
E. D. Sm., 341; "Wells v. March, 30 N. Y., 344; Osborne v. Barge, 3^
Fed. Rep. 93; Coleman v. Darling, 66 Wis., 155.
» Pars. Part. pp. 351-361, 481-484; 1 Coll. on Part. fWood's Ed.), p.
187, n. 3; Wright v. Ward, 65 Cal., 523; Daniel v. Owen, 70 Ala.,
397; Randall V. Johnson, 13 R. I., 338; Read v. Lanahan, 47 N. Y.
Super. Ct. Rep., 375; Hutchinson v. Dubois, 45 Mich. 143; Hershfield
V. Claflin, 25 Kan., 166; Atkins v. Saxton, 77 N. Y., 195 ; Strauss v.
Frederick, 19 N. C, 131; Smith v. Jones, 18 Neb., 481; Davis v.
Howell, 38 N. J. Eq., 72.
42 COEPORATIONS. [ § 30.
§ 30. Corporations — A corporation is an artificial
person, created by law, and endowed by its creator with
certain attributes, rights, and privileges, common to a
natural person. It has, however, some franchises which
do not belong to individuals generally of common right,
and is subject to some limitations from which natural
persons are free. In contemplation of law, the artificial
body thus created is an entity distinct from the individ-
uals that compose it; and corporations aggregate are
characterized as immortal by Chief J. Marshall, in the
famous Dartmouth College case, meaning thereby that
they have the property of succession, by which the body
remains the same under all changes of its membership.'
Corporations are created by the sovereign power of the
state which, in this country, is exercised through the
legislature. They may rest on prescription ; but in such
case long user presupposes an original grant from which
their existence was derived."
The United States Congress, as well as the State legis-
latures, has power to create corporations, public or
private, ' ' whenever these become an appropriate means
of exercising any of the constitutional powers of the
general government, or of facilitating its lawful opera-
tions in the States or Territories. ' ' '
• 1 Potter Corp., § 6; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp., § 9; 3 Black. Com., p. 468,
et seq.; Boone Corp., § 1; Dartmouth Coll. v. Woodward, 4 Wheat ,
633; People v. Assessors, etc., 1 Hill, 616, 630 ; Providence Bank v.
BiUings, 4 Pet., 563; Brunswick v. Dunning, 7 Mass., 445, 447.
» 1 Potter Corp., § 6; 1 DiU. Mun. Corp., §§ 15, 17; 3 Kent Com , p.
276; McCuUoch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat., 316, 434; Franklin Bridge Co.
V. Wood, 14 Ga., 80 ; Stone v. Flagg, 73 111., 397 ; Sherwood v. Am
Bible Soc, 1 Keyes, 561.
» 1 DUl. Mun. Corp., § 18; 1 Potter Corp., § 6 ; Osborne > Bank ot
§ 3 O.J OOEPOEATIONS. i3
Corporations are classified thus : Public, and private ;
aggregate and sole ; ecclesiastical or religious, and lay ;
and the latter are subdivided into eleemosynary, and
civil. But the plan and scope of this work do not
require more than a statement of the classification ; and
most of the doctrines presented under this section apply
especially, though not exclusively, to private corpora-
tions aggregate, as illustrating the method of holding or
owning personal property, the point now under discus-
sion. '
It is quite apparent, from the nature and organization
of corporations, that they must act through natural per-
sons as agents ; and these are primarily and principally
the oificers of the corporate body. But, corporations
generally have the same power as natural persons of
appointing sub-agents, when the legitimate business of
the body makes it necessary or proper. The oflBcers are,
in a sense, superior to their principal in so far as the
individual corporators constitute the body. They are
charged by law with certain duties, and clothed with
certain authority ; and in the discharge of these duties,
or the exercise of this authority, the corporators cannot
rightfully interfere ; and courts of equity will not exer-
cise their jurisdiction to direct or control ofBcers in
regard to their duties, except in clear oases of fraud or
U. S , 9 "Wheat., 738 ; Thompson v. Pacific R. R. Co., 9 Wall., 519;
Pacific R. R. Co. v. Lincoln Co., 1 DiU. C. C. R., 314.
'1 Potter Corp., g§ 15-30; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp., § 34; Dartmouth
Coll. V. Woodward, 4 Wheat., 518; People v. Assessors, etc., 1 Hill,
616; Robertson v. Bullions, 11 N. Y., 243; Silsby v. Barlow, 16 Gray,
329; Boone Corp., §§ 6-12.
44- COEPOEATIONS. [ § 30.
excess of authority, where there is no adequate remedy
at law.' '
The early common law doctrine that a corporation
aggregate has no power of contract except by specialty,
is BO changed that such a corporation, when acting
within the limits of its chartered powers, and the range
of the purposes of its organization, may make binding
parol contracts. In case of specialties the corporate seal
is -still essential to a binding contract, but in all other
respects the power of a corporation to perform all legiti-
mate acts, and make all necessary ai;id proper contracts
by parol, through its authorized agents, is substantially
the same as that of a natural person. And, as in case
•of a natural person, promises may be imphed from the
acts of a corporation, or of its agents.'
By the common law, corporations have the capacity
of taking, holding, possessing, aliening, and transmitting
in succession, real and personal property to the same
extent as natural persons, so far as necessary for the
purposes of their creation. But this capacity may be,
' 1 Potter Corp., § 126-133; Ang. & Ames Corp., § 313; Pom. Eq., §
1090; Boone Corp., § 137-133; Planters' Bank v. Andrews, 8 Port.,
404; N. H. Sav. Bank v. Downing, 6 M H., 187; Church v. Sherman,
56 Wis., 404; Belmont v. Erie R'way Co., 53 Barb., 637.
2 1 Potter Corp., § 36, 37; 3 Kent Com., pp. 389-391 ; Ang. & Ames
'Corp., § 238, et seq.; Bank of Columbia v. Patterson, 7 Cranch, 399;
Fleckner v. JJ. S. Bank, 8 Wheat., 338; Bm-rill v. Nahant Bank, 2
Met., 163; Strauss v. Eagle Ins. Co., 5 Ohio St., 59; Partridge v.
Badger, 35 Barb., 146; Barry v. Merch. Exch. Co., 1 Sandf., Ch. 380;
Merchants' Bank v. Bank of Columbia, 5 Wheat., 336; Bank of U. S.
-V. Dandridge, 12 Wheat., 68; Sheldon v. Fairfax, 21 Vt., 103; Palmer
av. Medina Ins. Co., 30 Ohio, 587.
§ 30.] COEPOEATIONS. 45
and generally is, limited by their charter, or by general
statutory law, especially in respect to real estate.'
The individual corporators have not the same owner-
ship or interest in the corporate property, as have ten-
ants or owners in common, joint owners, or partners, in
the common property of their respective associations.
In other words, they are not owners in common, joint
owners, or partners; but the title is in the artificial
body which, in contemplation of law as we have seen, is
distinct from the members of the corporation. The cap-
ital of private corporations aggregate is divided into
shares, called stoch. These shares give to holders an
interest in the capital to the extent of their value, and
entitle them to a corresponding and proportionate part
of the profits of the business. The term stoch, in its full
legal import, embraces the whole interest of the share-
holders in the corporation, and all their rights growing
out of the relation. It includes the right to share in all
dividends, and surplus profits issuing from the use of the
capital stock, and also their proportionate share of the
capital and property of the corporation on its dissolution,
after payment of the debts.
But a share-holder has no legal title to the property
or profits until a division is made, or a dividend is
actually declared. When declared it is, in contemplation
of law, severed from the common fund, and becomes the
individual property of the stockholders, which they are
' Aug. V. Ames Corp., g§ 110, 111; 3 Kent Com , p. 378 ; 1 Potter
Corp., §61; Boone Corp., §40; Dutch Church v. Mott, 7 Paige, 83;
Raymond v. Commissioners, etc., 5 Ohio, 305; McCartee v. Orph.
Asj. Soc, 9 Cow., 437; Ketchum v. Buffalo, 14 N. Y., 356; Robie v.
Sedgwick, 35 Barb. ,319; Infra, Ch. XIII.
46 JOmT-STOCK COMPANIES. [ § 31.
entitled to receive, and for which, on demand and
refusal, they may severally maintain an action of
assumpsit against the corporation. A dividend declared
is thereafter held as a trust fund by the corporation, and
it cannot rightfully be devoted to other objects.
The owner of stock may assign or transfer it at pleas-
ure, and give to the assignee the same title and interest
held and owned by himself, including dividends there-
after declared, whether earned before or after the trans-
fer ; and the assignee will be subject to the obligations
and disabilities of the assignor among which is the
liability for installments thereafter called for. But a
share-holder cannot so dispose of his interest as to
separate it from the body of stock held in common with
other stockholders.
At common law, stock cannot be taken in execution
and sold for the debts of the owner; but it may be
reached for the benefit of creditors by means of equity
proceedings. '
**•
§ 31. Joint-stock companies. — These associations
occupy a middle ground between corporations and part-
nerships, having features peculiar to each. Like corpor-
' 1 Potter Corp., §§ 356-262; Pom. Eq. Jur., § 1090; Boone Corp. gg
106, 123-135 ; 1 Sch. Pars. Prop., p. 643; Ang. & Ames Corp., §§ 588-
589; Hyatt et al. v. AUen, 56 N. Y., 196 ; Brightwell v.'Mallory, 10
Yerg,, 196; State v. Franklin Bank, 10 Ohio, 90, 97; Duvergier v.
Fellows, 5 Bing., 348 ; Quiner v. Marblehead Ins. Co., 10 Mass., 476;
Moore v. Bank of Commerce, 53 Mo., 377; Bayard v. Farmers, etc..
Bank, 53 Pa. St., 233; Sabine v. Bank ofWoodstock, 21 Vt., 358;
Howe V. Starkweather, 17 Ma3s., 240; Denton v. Livingston, 9 Johns.,
96; Granger v. Bassett, 98 Mass , 463; LeRoy v. Globe Ins. Co., 3
Edw. Ch., 657.
§ 31. J JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES. 47 I
ations they have a common name, usually descriptive of
their business, and which does not, as in partnerships,
consist of the names of the members. They have also,
like corporations, their officers, by-laws, and rules of
procedure, and by these rules and by-laws the election of
officers, transaction of business, and the transfer of
shares, is regulated. The transfer of shares or the inter-
est of a member in the property of the company, is made
by certificate or scrip, issued and recorded in substantially
the same manner and form as in the case of corporations.
But they are more assimilated tc partnerships than to
corporations, both in respect of organic character, and of
their internal and external relations ; and they are gener-
ally subject to the law of partnerships. They have been
•characterized as partnerships in which the capital is
■divided, or agreed to be divided, into shares so as to be
transferable without the express consent of all the co-
partners, not an inapt characterization.'
In England, and sometimes also in this country, joint-
■stock companies are regulated by statute. When not
incorporated, or organized under and regulated by statute,
.general or special, they are in essence partnerships by
whatever name christened, albeit partnerships of a
peculiar character.'
' Pars. Part., pp. 541-546; Potter Coi-p., §§ 631-633; 1 Sch. Pers.
Prop., pp. 347-350; 3 Kent Com,, pp. 37, 38; Bouv. L. Diet., "joint-
■stock companies "
* Citations supra; and Williams v. The Bank of Mich., 7 Wend.,
U2; Tenney v. The N. E. Protective Union, 37 Vt., 64 ; The King v.
Dodd, 9 East., 516; Holmes v. Higgins, 1 B. & C, 74; Hess v. Werts,
4 Serg. & R., 356; Gorman v. Eussell, 18 Cal., 688; Bobbins v. Butler,
■24111., 387.
4:8 JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES. [ § 31
Between corporations and joint-stock companies there
is a marked difference in this : In the former the rights,
duties, and responsibilities of the body and of its mem-
bers, are prescribed and governed strictly by the provis-
ions of their respective charters, and the general corpora-
tion laws applicable to such corporations ; and stockholders
are not personally or individually liable for the acts or
contracts of the officers or members of the body, unless
expressly so made by the charter, or the general statutory
law applicable to such bodies. "Whereas, in all unincor-
porated companies, where the common law rule is not
changed by statute, the stockholders are personally
responsible in their individual capacities for all acts and
contracts of the company, and of its authorized agents,
within the scope of the business of the association, the
same as in partnerships proper. '
There is an important difference between a partner-
ship and a joint-stock company in the effect produced by
the death of a member, or the transfer of all his interest
in the association. In the former it works a dissolution
of the coi6pany ; but not necessarily, or generally, so in
the latter."
' Story Part., pp. 107-109 ; Pars. Part., pp. 544, 545; 3 Coll. Part.
(Wood's Ed.), §833; Babb v. Read, 5 Rawle, 157; Tappan v. Bailey,
4 Md., 535; Cox v. Badflsh, 35 Me., 303; Skinner v. Dayton, 19 Johns..
513; Penn. Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 5 Minn., 36; Henry v. Jackson, 37
Vt., 431; and Gorman v. Russell, 18 Cal., 688; Williams v. The Bank
of Mich. , Tenney v. The N. E. Protective Union, and Robbins v. But-
ler, cited-supra.
« Pars. Part., pp. 545, 547; Putnam v. Wise, 1 Hill, 334 ; Murray
V. Bogart, 14 Johns., 318; Marquand v. N. Y. Manuf. Co., 17 Id.,
535; Woodwell v. Keeler, 8 Watts & S., 63; Kingman v. Spurr, 7
Pick., 835 ; Mason v. Connell, 1 Whart., 381; James v. Woodruff, a
Denio, 574.
§ 31.] JOINT-STUCK OOMI'AXIKt,. 49
From what has now been said in regard to joint-stock
companies, it will be correctly inferred that the common
law rules applicable thereto may be changed by statute,
or modified in their application by articles of agreement.
And it should be noted that, when associations intended
as joint-stock companies, fail to become such on account
of some informality in their organization, they generally
constitute partnerships, and are subject to the laws appli-
cable thereto.'
In some cases the legal title to all the property of the
company is vested in trustees, who hold it in trust for
the benefit of the share-holders, who have the equitable
interest ; but this does not affect the rules herein pre-
sented as governing such companies.
It may be added that generally, as in the case of cor-
porations, the business of joint-stock companies is man-
aged by their officers and other agents employed for the
purpose ; and to the relation of principal and agent, thus
created, the general law of agency applies.'
Joint-stock companies, like corporations aggregate and
partnerships, may take, hold, and alien, both real, and
personal property, subject to statutory limitations and
regulations.
' Pars. Part., p. 548; Whipple v. Parker, 29 Mich., 370; Manningv.
Gasharie, 37 Ind., 399; National Bank v. Landon, 45 N. Y., 410.
• Pars. Part., p. 543; 3 CoU. Part. (Wood's Ed.), § 845.
4
50 MODES OF ACQUIEING TITLB. [ § 32.
CHAPTEE YI.
MODES OF ACQTJIEINa TITLE TO PERSONAL PROPERTY.
Section 33. Modes of acquiring title classified and analyzed.
§ 33. Modes of acquiring title classified and ana-
lyzed. — By a common and convenient analysis and
grouping, there are three general ways in which title to
personal property may be acquired, viz :
First. By original acquisition ;
Second. By transfer by act of law ; and
Third. By transfer by act of the parties.'
These general ways are severally sub-divided into par-
ticular methods, each embracing its specific ways of
acquiring title to- wit :
First. Original acquisition ; sub-divided into —
1. Occwpcmcy, embracing (a) goods taken by
capture in war ; (b) goods casually lost by
the owner, and unreclaimed, or designedly
abandoned ; (c) waifs ; and (d) reclaiming
animals ferm naturce.
2. Accession; embracing (a) fruits of the earth,
produced naturally, or by human indus-
try; (b) the increase of animals; (c)
materials of one person united to the
materials of another ; and (d) confusion of
goods.
' 2 Black. Com., pp. 2 et seq., 401; 2 Kent. Com. p. 356; 3 Sch
Pers. Prop. , p. 4.
§ 32.J MODES OF ACQUIRING TITLE.. 51
3. Products of intellectual labor ; embracing
(a) patents for inventions and designs ; (b)
copyright ; (c) letters addressed from one
correspondent to another ; and (d) lectures.
4. Trade-marTcs.
Second. Transfer hy act of law/ sub-divided into (1)
forfeiture; (2) succession; (3) judgment; (4) intestacy;
(5) insolvency ; and (6) marriage.
Third. Transfer by act of the parties; sub-divided
into (1) gifts inter vivos j (2) gifts causa mortis ; (3) title
by will or testament ; (4) sales ; (5) indorsements ; (6)
assignments ; and (7) bailments.
In the chapters following, these general and particular
methods of acquiring title to personal property will be
discussed briefly in the order above named, including the
specific modes under each sub-division.
In considering the methods of aGquirimg title, the ways
of losvng it will necessarily appear ; and hence direct
treatment of the latter would be superfluous.
53 occuPA^oT. [ § 33.
CHAPTEE YII.
TITLE BY ORIGINAL ACQUISITION.
SBOnON 33. Occupancy; the first known method of acquiring title.
34. Goods taken by capture in war.
35. Goods lost or abandoned.
36. Waifs.
37. Reclamation of animals fercB naturce,
38. Title by accession; defined.
39. Fruits of the earth.
40. Increase of animals.
41. Materials of one person united to those of another.
42. Products of inteUeotual labor, discussed.
43-46. Patents for inTentions and designs.
47-50. Copyright.
51. Letters from one correspondent to another.
53. Lectures.
53-60. Trade-marks.
§ 33. Occupancy. — Under original accfliisition, the
first general mode of acquiring title to personal property,
occupancy is primal. This includes the original or begin-
ning of title, and also the recommencement when the
chain has been broken, and the connecting link is lost.
Occupancy is generally regarded as the first known
method of acquiring exclusive title to property.
The origin and foundation of the right of private
property has given rise to much learned discussion, and
some contrariety of opinion among publicists. "Without
attempting in this connection to present the different
views and lines of argument on the question, it wiU be
assumed in accord with the author's belief, that the right
§ 33.] OOCVTASOY. 63
of property is of Divine origin, derived by title deed
from the original Creator of all things, and attested by
universal intuition. Among aU nations and peoples,
from the rudest and most barbarous to the most highly
civilized and polished, there has always existed a natural
sense of property, the recognition of a natural law of
property. There has always and everywhere existed an
intuitive conviction of a natural right to gratify the uni-
versal desire of mankind to acquire and possess external
things, and to exercise exclusive dominion over them.
And it is written by the pen of inspiration that our
infinitely wise and beneficent Creator gave to men
' ' dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and
over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. '"
But, assuming that by force of natural law and Divine
ordinance, the right of property in external things in the
aggregate belongs to the human race collectively, the
question still remains, — How can an individual acquire
exclusive title to things in the segregate? To this ques-
tion ho writer has given a more satisfactory answer than
Chancellor Kent, who says : ' ' The exclusive right of
using and transferring property, follows as a natural con-
sequence, from the perception and admission of the right
itself;" that is, the perception and admission of the
truth that the acquisition and enjoyment of property is a
law of man's nature.
It is claimed by some writers, that in the infancy of
society there was a community of goods. There may
have been a community in the substance of things, in the
' Genesis, ch. I, v 26.
64 OCCUPANCY. ^ [ § 33.
sense that property in the aggregate belongs to mankind
as a whole ; but community cannot reasonably be predi-
cated of the use of things while in the possession of
individuals, it being impracticable, and in conflict with
the natural right of private property. Eeferring to the
germinant period of legal ideas in the early stages of
society, we find that the usufruct constituted the only
benefit and value of property ; and hence the theory of
a community in the substance of things, based upon the
doctrine that to mankind in general belong the subjects
of property as a whole, is not incompatible with the
right of individuals to the exclusive use of particular
things.
But, whatever theory we adopt the fact is, that he
who first appropriated a thing to his own use acquired a
property therein, and an exclusive right thereto, by
common consent ; which property and right continued so
long as the exclusive use or occupancy continued, and no
longer. The right of possession was limited to the act of
possession ; when the latter ceased the former was lost ;
whereupon any other individual might appropriate the
thing to his own use, with" the like right and limitation ;
and so on in succession indefinitely. This rule is well
adapted to the intelligence and wants of man in a rude
and undeveloped condition of the race. His nature is
largely sensuous ; he is unable to grasp abstract prin-
ciples, and his perception of intelligent ideas is confused
and feeble. Hence the truth of the saying that ' ' prop-
erty without possession, was too abstract an idea for
savage hf e. ' ' It may be said also with equal truth, that
the mere use or occupancy of goods and chattels was
§ 34. J GOODS TAKEN BT OAPTUEE IN WAE. 55
ample for the few and simple wants of man in the primi-
tive condition of society.
But the world moved ; population, and the wants of
man increased; social relations became more complex;
individual interests clashed ; and the time came when it
was seen that personal rights, and the peace and welfare
of society, required practical recognition of exclusive pri-
vate property in the substance, as well as in the use, of
things.
This doctrine established, another step in advance, the
right of transferring both the title and the possession of
property, was natural and logical. Thus, advancing step
by step as the exigencies of society demanded, and reason
dictated, grew up that just and enlightened system of
principles and rules which constitute the law of personal
property. Briefly stated, the order of development was,
first, the right of possession or occupancy, the usufruct ;
second, the right to the substance of the thing, which
carries with it th.e prima facie right of possession; and,
third, the right to transfer the" thing itself, including
both the substance and the possession.
"With this brief historical sketch of title to personal
property, we are prepared to discuss the different ways
of acquiring title by occupancy, one of the subdivisions
of title by original acquisition.'
§ 34. Goods taken by capture in war. — This consti-
tutes one mode of acquiring title by occupancy. At the
' 3 Black. Com., pp. 3, et seq., 258, 401; 3 Kent Com., pp. 317, et
seq., 356; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 1-24; 3 Id., pp. 5-8; Bouv. L. Diet,
"acquisition;" Holy Bible, Gen. I., 38; And. L. Diet., "oeoupanoy."
56 GOODS TAKEN BY CAPTUEE IN WAE. [ § 34.
common law, the title to goods taken by capture in war
vested in the captor, whether seized by national agency
or by voluntary individual action ; but now, by the gen-
eral consensus of civilized nations, the title in either case
vests primarily in the sovereign; and captured goods
belong to the individual captors only to the extent, and
under regulations, prescribed by positive law.
The right of seizure is now generally regarded as a
maritime right; and the purpose of its exercise is the
destruction of the enemy's commerce and navigation,
thus weakening his naval power. In contemplation of
law, a declaration of war duly made by the sovereign or
government of a state, is a declaration of war by all its
subjects individually and collectively, and is binding upon
all. As a corollary of this doctrine, not only do the
belligerent nations become enemies, but 'by implication
all the subjects of each become enemies to all the sub-
jects of the other. From this doctrine, in connection
with the rule of public law that the- property of an
enemy, or of his subjects, is liable to capture by the
adverse nation, it would seem to follow logically that the
seizure may be made voluntarily by a private citizen, as
well as by direct sovereign or governmental authority ;
and such is the law. As a consequence, title to the cap-
tured property being lost by the owner, would, at common
law, vest directly in the captors, as the title must be in
some body, natural or corporate; and such is strictly
and logically the rule as between the belligerent parties.
But the prevailing doctrine of public law on the subject
now is, that when a private citizen makes the seizure he
is supposed to act in behalf of the government, whose
§ 34:.] GOODS TAKEN' BY CAI'TtTEE IN WAE. 57
prerogative it is to adopt or repudiate the seizure at
pleasure. Adoption by the government being equiva-
lent to a, precedent authority or command, the seizure
becomes the act of the government. If the government
repudiates, or fails to adopt the capture, the individual
captors will take no title to the property seized.
In all maritime captures, whether by sovereign
authority or by voluntary private action, the captured
property, with proofs of legality of seizure, must be sub-
mitted to a prize court, whose adjudication determines
the legality of the capture, and the transfer of title. If
the seizure be sustained, the proceeds of the captured
property is generally distributed among the captors as a
"reward for bravery, and a stimulus to exertion."
Regarding the property of ahen enemies found within
the limits of a state on the commencement of hostilities,
there has been considerable discussion ; but the doctrine
seems to be well established that the state has the right
to capture and confiscate such property. But the exer-
cise of this harsh and practically unjust measure rests in
the discretion of the government ; and the right itself has
been to a large extent practically nullified by the laws
and ordinances of many governments, and by inter-
national treaties. By these provisions in the interest of
justice and progressive civilization, property of alien
enemies brought into the country in good faith and with
the sanction of the government, before the outbreak of
hostilities, is protected from confiscation. In the United
States the existence of this right is made to depend upon
act of Congress.
The right of seizure and confiscation of private prop-
58 GOODS LOST OE ABANDONED. [ § 35.
erty is not the same upon the land as in naval warfare.
It is true that, in cases of military necessity, the capture
or destruction of the enemy's property on land is sanc-
tioned by the law of nations ; but the doctrine seems to
be established that no private right of property arises
from capture by land forces. And, unnecessary depre-
dations upon private property in the prosecution of
hostilities upon land are restricted and discouraged by
wise and humane commanders.
Before closing this section, it may be well to note that
one consequence of a declaration of war is, to interdict
all commercial intercourse between the subjects of the
belligerent powers, and to render contracts between them
void, except such as are made under license of the govern-
ment, express or implied.'
§ 35. Goods lost, or abandoned At common law,
to goods lost by the owner and unreclaimed, or design-
edly abandoned by him, the finder acquires title by occu-
pancy. But the former owner must have completely
relinquished the chattel before a perfect title will accrue
to the finder."
' 1 Kent Com., pp. 55-59, 97, 101, 108-113; 1 Cooley's Black., p 359,
and n.; 1 Abb. U. S. Pr., pp. 545-554; Abb. Ship. (7 Am. Ed.), pp 29-
34, and notes; Bouv. L. Diet., "Capture;" Conkl. Prac, p. 461;
Bishop Con. (Enl. Ed.), § 1000: Brown v. United States, 8 Cranch,
110; The Cargo of Ship ilmulous, 1 GaU., 563; The AngeUoa, Blatchf.
Pr. Cas., 566; The Merimac, Id., 584; The Caledonia, 4 Wheat., 100;
Carrington v. MerohajQt's Ins. Co., 8 Pet., 495; Taylor et al. v. The
United States, 3 How.., -197; United States v. The Active, 3 Car. Law
Repos., 193; United States v. Twohundred, etc., balesof Cotton, Law
Rep. N. S., 461; And. L. Diet., "capture."
' 3 Kent Com., pp. 356, 357; 3 Sch. Pars. Prop., p. 14, et seq.; "Wil-
liams Pers. Prop., p. 24; Bridges v. Hawkesworth, 9 Eng. L. & Eq..
§ 3 5. J GOODS LOST OE ABANDONED. 59
The title to lost goods remains in the former owner
until he abandons the intention of reclaiming them ; and
such intention may be presumed by lapse of time, or
shown by some affirmative act on his part ; the fact in
all cases being determined by the circumstances. Until
such abandonment he will have the right to take posses-
sion of the lost chattel whenever and wherever he may
find it, even though it may have passed into the hands
of a hona fide purchaser. But, in the meantime, the
finder or purchaser will have a special property in the
chattel, which will enable him to maintain trespass or
trover against a stranger for an unauthorized interfer-
ence with, or conversion of, the property.'
In case the finder knows the owner, or if circumstances
come to his knowledge indicating the true ownership,
and he conceals the finding and converts the property to
his own use, he may be held guilty of larceny. But
some cases hold that, to constitute larceny the finder
must have had the animus furandi when the property
was found and taken by him, and that no subsequent act
or intent can render him guilty of larceny."
424; Livermore v. White, 74 Me., 456; S. C. Am. Rep., 600; Hamaker
V. Blanchard, 90 Pa. St., 377; S. C. 35 Am. Rep., 664; Brown v. Sul-
livan, 62 Ind., 281 ; Tancil v. Seaton, 28 Gratt. (Va,.), 601; Durfee v.
Jones, 11 R. I., 586; New York & H. R. Co. v. Haws, 56 N. Y., 175.
' 2 Kent Com., p. 356; 2 Sch. Pars. Prop., p. 14, et seq.; Williams
Pers. Prop., pp. 23-26; Armory v. Delamirie, Str. Rep., 556; Brandon
V. HuntsviUe Bank, 1 Stewart (Ala.), 320; Agar v. Lisle, Hob., 187;
Knapp V. Winchester, 11 Vt., 351; Cook v. Patterson, 35 Ala., 102;
Jeffries V. Great Western R. R. Co., 34 Eng. L. & Eq., 122; Sylvester
V. Girard, 4 Rawle, 185.
« 2 Kent. Com., p. 357 ; Bishop Crim. L., §§ 880-883; 3 Sch. Pers.
Prop., pp. 24, 25; Rex v. Mucklow, 1 Ryan & M,, 160; Butler's Case,
3 Inst., 107; People t. Anderson, 14 Johns., 394; People v. Cogdell, 1
60 GOODS LOST OE ABANDONED. [ § 35.
The acquisition of title by finding is limited to chattels
on the earth's surface, and does not apply to treasure
trove, goods hidden in the earth. It is held with reason
that, the fact of burying or concealing the property by
the owner, indicates his purpose of retaining, and nega-
tives the intention of abandoning, the same. '
Stolen corporeal property may be recovered by the
owner, not dnly from the thief, but from any person in
whose hands it may be found, even from a honafide pur-
chaser. The thief acquires no title, and has none to
convey.'
But commercial policy has established a different rule
in respect to money, bank notes, and current negotiable
securities, to which a hona fide holder acquires and will
retain title against a former owner, in whatever way he
may have lost the chattel, even though it were stolen
• from him.'
And, for like reasons, the hona fide holder of negoti-
a,ble commercial paper indorsed in blank, or payable or
Hill, 94; The State v. Weston, 9 Conn., 527; People v. McGarren, 17
Wend., 460; McAvoy v. Medina, 11 Allen, 548; Bridges v. Hawkes-
•worth, 7 Eng. L. and Eq., 424; And. L. Diet., "abandoned."
' 2 Kent Com., p. 358; and cases cited supra.
» 3 Pars. Cont. i!l Ed.), p. 520; 2 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 22: Bearce v.
Banker, 115 Mass., 129; Moody v. Blake, 117 Mass., 23, 26; Prime v.
•Cobb, 63 Me., 200; Bryant v. Witcher, 52 N. H., 158, 161; Klein v.
-Seibold, 89 IlL, 540; Nixon v. Brown, 57 N. H , 34; Coombs v. Gor-
den, 59 Me., Ill; Barker v. Dinsmore, 72 Pa. St., 427; Mechanics,
.etc.. Bank v. Farmers, etc.. Bank, 60 N. Y., 40; Hill v. Snell, 104
Mass., 173; Pease v. Smith, 61 N. Y., 477.
' 2 Sch. Peis. Prop., p. 28; Ventress ^ Smith, 10 Pet., 161; Hoff-
man V. Carow, 22 Wend., 285: Goodman v. Simonds, 20 How., 343;
3ackhouse V. Han-ison, 5 B. & Ad.. 1098; Lowndes v. Anderson, 13
Ilast., 130; Raphael v. The Bank of England, 17 C. B. 161.
§ 36. J WAIFS. 61
indorsed to bearer, and acquired by him before its matur-
ity, for a valuable consideration, and without notice of
the loss, acquires a good title, and can maintain it against
the former owner. Nothing short of mala fides wiD
defeat the holder's title.'
As it is the duty of the finder to take proper care of
the goods, and to make all reasonable efforts to ascertain
the true owner, it is but simple justice that he should
receive suitable compensation for his trouble and expense
in that regard ; and this the law awards him. But it is
held that the finder has no lien on the property for his
trouble and expense, except as to a reward offered for its
recovery."
The common law doctrine on this subject has been
more or less modified in some of our States, and else-
where, by legislation ; making the state instead of the
finder the paramount owner, subject to the rights of the
true owner, and also in some other particulars. Presum-
ably every student and practitioner wiU examine the
modifying statutes for himself, whenever it may be
requisite for his purposes.
§ 36. Waifs. — Stolen goods waived or thrown away
by a thief in his flight, through fear of apprehension, are
called waifs. If the goods thus waived be seized by a
public officer, or by a private person, before ' the owner
' 2 Dan. Neg. Inst., § 1469; Story on Notes, § 383; Stouy, BiUs, §416;
Chitty, Bills (13 Am. Ed.), pp. 254, 355; Murray v. Lardner, 3 Wall.,
710; Garvin v. WisweU, 83 lU., 316.
» 2 Kent Com., p 856; 2 Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 15, 16; Williams
Pers. Prop, p. 38, et seq.; Nicholson v. Chapman, 3 H. BL, 354;
Wentworth v. Day, 3 Met., 353; Marvin v. Treat, 37 Conn., 96; Wood
V. Pierson, 45 Mich., 313.'
62 EECLAMATION OF ANIMALS. [ § 37.
reclaims them, the latter, at common law, loses his title
thereto. This on the assumption that the owner was
culpably negligent in pursuing the thief and reclaiming
his goods, and therefore should lose his title as a punish-
ment. In England, when waifs are first seized bv some-
body other than the owner, the title vests in the crown ;
but if first seized and reclaimed by the owner he does not
forfeit his title. When the title does pass to the crown,
the owner may regain his goods by following and cap-
turing the thief, or by furnishing evidence suificient to
cause his conviction after capture. If the thief conceals
the goods, or does not take them with him in his flight,
they are not waifs and the owner may 'have them again
at his pleasure.
The goods of a foreign merchant, though stolen and
waived in flight by the thief, are not deemed waifs or
bona waviata I the reason whereof, suggested by Black-
stone, being, ' ' not only for the encouragement of trade,
but also because there is no willful default in the foreign
merchant's not pursuing the thief; he being generally a
stranger ' ' to the laws, usages, and language of England.
In this country, it is generally held that waifs pass to
the state in trust for the true owner, who may regain his
property by making due proof of his rights. '
§ 37. Reclamation of animals ferae naturae. — Another
mode of obtaining title to personal property by original
acquisition, through occupancy, is by reclaiming animals
wild by nature, ferm natv/rce. "Wild animals belong to
' Black. Com. (Cooley's Ed.), p. 397, and notes; 3 Id., p. 409; Kent
Com., p. 359; 3 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 9; And. L. Diet., " waifs."
§ 37. J RECLAMATION OF ANIMALS. 63
nobody in particular; yet they become the qualified
property of any. one who subjects them to his possession
or power. The qualified property thus acquired con-
tinues in the captor while possession or control is main-
tained, or until the animal becomes so far domesticated
that it will not voluntarily leave without the animus
revertendi. "When this point is reached the qualified,
has ripened into absolute, property, the nature of the
animal being changed from ferm natwrcB to domitce
natv/roe, wild to tame. Until thus changed, and while in
the possession or power of the captor, his qualified prop-
erty will be fully under the cognizance and protection of
law ; but if the animal escape and regain its natural free-
dom, without the animus revertendi, the captor's title is
wholly lost, and any other person may rightfully take the
fugitive, thereby acquiring the same qualified property
possessed by the first captor ; and so on indefinitely. '
Some text writers have suggested a practical difiiculty
in drawing the dividing line between the two classes of
animals, wild and tame; and there has been some con-
troversy among distinguished publicists respecting the
■origin of the distinction. By some it is claimed that all
animals are by nature wild and free ; the mild and docile
•character of those classed as tame being the natural
■effect of their subjugation and bondage to men ; while
others insist that wild and savage animals are by nature
mild and tame, their wild and ferocious disposition being
■due to the violent and inhuman treatment of man.
' 3 Black. Com. (Cooley's Ed.), pp. 390-395, and notes; Id., p. 404;
•2 Kent. Com., pp. 348-350; 1 Sch.' Pars. Prop^, pp. 77-83; Williams
Pars. Prop., pp. 19, 20; And L. Diet., "animal."
64 RECLAMATION OF ANIIIALS. - [ § 37.
These speculations are of little or no practical value ;
facts and experience far outweigh theories. From a
remote age of the world two classes of animals, wild and
tame, have been universally recognized ; and there ought
not to be any serious embarrassment in marking the divi-
sion line between them. Animals that are generally
found living contentedly in and about the dwellings of
man, or grazing in his fields, and that minister to his
pleasure or profit, such as dogs, horses, sheep, oxen, and
other cattle, are classed as tame or domestic by common
and unquestioning consent. While animals of a preda-
tory or ferocious character, that run at large in fields
and forests, and never visit the abodes or haunts of men
except on stealthy and mischievous excursions, or on bold
raids in quest of prey, are known and classed as wild
without doubt or hesitancy. Belonging to the latter
class there are, however, some of an exceptionally mild
type that frequently become domesticated, and hence
absolute property in their owners; among which are
deer, -hares, rabbits, doves, and others of like character,"
Honey-bees are ferm natv/roB j but, when reclaimed
and hived, they become the subjects of qualified prop-
erty. But the finding of a bee-tree on the land of
another, and marking it, does not give title to the finder.
If bees when hived escape, or a swarm departs from the
hive, the owner does not lose his property in them so
long as he pursues and is able to identify them.'
' Citations supra, and Manning v. Mitcherson, 69 Ga., 447; S. C,
47 Am. Rep., 764; Amory v. Flyn, 10 Johns., 102.
» Kent Com., p. 850; 3 Black. Com. (Cooley's Ed.), p. 393; 1 Sch.
Pers. Prop., p. 83; Gillet v. Mason, 7 Johns., 16; Furgeson v. Miller,
1 Cow., 243; Idol v. Jones, 2 Dev. (N. C.) L., 162; State v. Murphy, 8
Ulackf., 498; Gofif v. Kilts, 15 Wend., 550.
§§ 38, 39.] TITLE BY ACCESSION. 65
While property iii wild' animals can be acquired only
by occupancy, actual or constructive, an actual taking is
not always necessary to create title ; it is sufficient if the
pursuer bring the animal within his power or control.'
§ 38. Title to personal property by accession
Falling under the second subdivision of original acquisi-
tion, is title by accession. Chancellor Kent, following
the French and Louisiana Codes, defines the right of
accession " to be the right to all which one's own prop-
erty produces, whether that property be movable or
immovable, and the right to that which is united to it
by accession, either naturally or artificially." This
definition is sufficiently accurate and comprehensive for
practical purposes ; and a better it would be difficult to
formulate. It embraces fruits of the earth, the increase
of animals, and materials of one person united to the
materials of another.
Confusion of goods, though differing somewhat from
accession proper, and sometimes treated separately, is
near of kin to accession, and may conveniently be dis-
cussed in the same connection."
§ 39. Fruits of the earth. — It is a familiar doctrine
that the fruits of the earth, whether produced naturally
or by human industry, belong generally to the owner of
the' soilj and this doctrine rests upon the right of acces-
sion.
' 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 80; 3 Kent Com., pp. 349, 350; Pierson v.
Post, 3 Cai. Cos., 175; Buster v. Newkirk, 20 Johns., 75.
' 3 Kent Com., pp. 361-365; French Code, Civil, No. 546, 547; Civil
Code of La., Art. 490, 491; 3 Black. Com., p. 405; 3 Sch. Pers. Prop.,
pp. 81-40; Bouv. L. Diet., "accession."
5
66 INCBEASE OF ANIMALS. [ § 40.
The same rule applies to trees, plants, and seeds, set
out or sown on land, whether by the owner or some
other person; excepting, however, trees and plants
placed temporarily in the soil of another by his consent,
with the privilege of removal at pleasure.
Under sanction of this general doctrine, it has been
held, that a party in possession of land, claiming
adversely, may pass the legal title to the crops raised
thereon by him, as against the true owner of the land
who is out of possession.'
§ 40. Increase of animals. — Of tame or domestic
animals, the offspring belong to the dam or mother, by
the law of accession. The maxim partus sequitur ventrem
applies to the brute creation, both under the English,
and the civil, law; but not, generally, to the human
species. Under the Eoman law, however, and also by
the slave code formerly existent in the United States, the
maxim was applied to the children of slave mothers ; and
for the reason, doubtless, that in contemplation of these
laws slaves were chattels. The reason of the rule as
applied to the brute creation is, according to Puffendorf,
that the male is frequently unknown, and that the dam
during pregnancy is almost useless to the proprietor,
while having to be maintained at his expense; and,
therefore, ' ' as her owner is the loser by her pregnancy,
he ought to be the gainer by her brood. " Blackstone
• Citations supra ; and Johnson v. Hunt, 11 Wend., 135; Fryatt v.
SulUvan Co., 7 HiU, 539; Gallup v. Josselyn, 7 Vt., 334; Eicketts
V. Dorrell, 55 Ind., 470; Stockwell v. Phelps, 34 N. Y., 363; Martin v.
Thompson, 63 Cal , 618; s. c, 45 Am. Rep., 663; Lindsay v. Winona
& St. Peter R. R., 29 Minn., 411; s. c, 43 Am. Rep., 238.
§ 41. J MATERIALS UNITED. 67
. mentions an exception- to the rule in question in the case
of young cygnets, which belong equally to the owner of
the cock and hen ; and this because the male is well
known by his constant association with the hen, and the
owner of one does not suffer more than the other during
pregnancy and nurture ; and hence, as the reason of the
rule ceases in this case, the rule itself ceases, the maxim
being cessante ratione cessat et ipse lex.
The rule in question applies, also, to the hirer of
domestic animals for a limited period, he being entitled
to their increase during the demise.'
§ 41. Materials of one person united to the materi-
als of another. — The general doctrine on this variety of
accession commonly found in our text-books is, that
where the materials of one person are united to the
materials of another, by the labor of the latter, who fur-
nishes the principal materials, the property in the joint
product is in the latter by right of accession.
"While this statement of the law is correct as far as it
goes, a more comprehensive statement of the general
doctrine may be formulated thus : Where materials are
furnished by one person, or several, and are united by
the labor of another, the joint product will, in the
absence of any agreement, belong to the contributor of
the most important or valuable constituent, whether it
be materials or labor. The word ' ' accession ' ' fairly
implies a drawing of the less to the greater.
' 2 Black. Com., p. 390; 3 Kent Com., pp. 361, 363; 1 Sch. Pers.
Prop., 79; Droit Nat. Lib., 4, ch. 7, § 4; Inst. 3, 1, 37; Wood v. Ash,
Owen's Rep., 139; Putnam v. Wiley, 8 Johns., 433; Stewart v. Bell,
33 Miss., 154; ConckUn v. Havens, 13 Johns., 314.
68 MATERIALS UNITED. [ § ^1-
In many of the reported cases, however, the skill of '
the artist, oMabor of the manufacturer, is not weighed
as against the materials, because the latter are delivered
to the former to be wrought into a chattel, on a bailment
or other contract ; and in doubtful cases of fact, which
doctrine shall apply and govern, contract or accession,
will depend upon the intention of the parties. But, that
under the doctrine of accession the value of the skill or
labor contributed to the joint product may constitute the
principal element, and carry the ownership, there can,
on principle, be no reasonable doubt.
This view is in accordance with the Roman law which,
in case of a fine painting on canvas, deemed the latter
the accessory, and awarded the picture to the artist by
right of accession. Mr. Kent suggests that the Koman
law on this point was inconsistent, in holding that the
same rule did iiot apply to a poem or history, but gave
the joint product to the person furnishing the paper or
parchment. But Blackstone's comment upon the rule of
the Roman law in question seems to relieve it from
inconsistency. After stating the rule involving the sup-
posed inconsistency, he adds, ' ' meaning thereby the
mechanical operation of writing, for which it directed
the scribe to receive a satisfaction ; for in works of genius
and invention, as in painting on another man's canvas,
the same law gave the canvas to the painter." This
explanation vindicates the consistency of the Roman law,
and at the same time recognizes the just rule that the
minor contributor is not denied compensation for his
labor or materials.'
' Citations supra, under § 38; Pulcifer v. Page, 32 Me , 404; Merritt
§ 41.] MATERIALS UNITED. 69
The rule that the most important or valuable con-
stituent of the combination draws to itself as accessories
all the others, finds illustration in the case of building
materials furnished by one person, and by him wrought
into a house on the land of another. In such case,'under
the combined operation of personal, converted into real,
property, and the right of accession, the materials will
belong with the house to the owner of the land, provided
the building be of such a character as to make it part of
the realty. Generally, however, the builder is entitled
to compensation for his materials and labor, either by
express or implied contract.
The doctrine is sometimes laid down without qualifica-
tion, that where the materials of one person are converted
by another into a new species of chattel, and the identity
of the materials destroyed, the new product belongs to
the transformer; as where wine, oil, or bread, is made
out of another's grapes, olives, or wheat.' But the rule
thus broadly stated needs qualification. The true doc-
trine, the writer thinks, is pronounced by the Court of
Appeals of New York, in the case of Silsbury v. MoGoon.
The question is there thoroughly discussed by several of
the judges ; and the report gives also, the very learned
and elaborate argument of that eminent lawyer, the late
Nicholas Hill, of counsel for the plaintiffs in error. The
reporter's head "notes bearing upon this question, are as
follows : " If a chattel ' wrongfully taken retains its
V. Johnson, 7 Johns., 473; Betts v. Lee, 5 Johns., 338; Stevens v.
Briggs, 5 Pick., 177; Gregory v. Stryker, 3 Den., 638; Eaton v. Mun- ,
roe, 52 Me., 63.
> 2 Kent. Com., pp. 364, 365; 2 Black. Com., p. 405; Silsbury v. Mc-
Coon, 6 HiU, 435.
70 PEODUCTS OF INTELLECTUAL LABOR. [ § 42.
original form and substance, or may be reduced to its
original materials, it belongs to the original owner;
and this rule, it seems, holds against an innocent pur-
chaser from the wrong-doer, without regard to the
increased value bestowed hj him upon the chattel."
' ' But if the chattel be converted by an innocent pur-
chaser or holder into a thing of a different species, as
where wheat is made, into bread, olives into oil, or grapes
into wine, the original owner cannot reclaim it."
' 'There is no such distinction, however, in favor of a will-
ful wrong-doer. He can acquire no property in the goods-
of another by any change wrought in them by his labor
or skill, however great the change may be, provided the
article was made from the original material. There is
no difference between the civil and the common law in
this respect. ' '
That a person cannot acquire title by a willful tort, as
against the true owner, is not only just in itself, and in
harmony with the general doctrines and spirit of the law,
but is sanctioned by numerous adjudications.'
§ 42. Products of intellectual labor. — These consti-
tute the third division of the first general way of acquir-
ing title to personal property, that of original acquisition ;
and embrace patents for inventions and designs, copy-
■ Citations supra; Brown v. Sax, 7 Cow., 95; Curtis v. Groat, 6
Johns., 169; Chandler v. Edson, 9 Johns., 363; Betts et al. v. Lee, 5
Johns., 348; Babcock v. Gill, 10 Johns., 287; Baker v. Wheeler, 8
Wend., 505, 508; Hyde v. Cookson, 21 Barb., 93; Eaton v. Munroe. 52
Me., 63; Riddle v. Driver, 12 Ala., 590; Strubee v. Cincinnati So. Ry.
Trustees, 78 Ky., 481; s. c. 39 Am. Rep., 251; Wetherbee v. Green, 22
Mich., 311.
§ 43. J ' PATENTS. 71
right, letters addressed from one correspotident to
another, lectures and telegrams.
The general doctrine in regard to proprietary rights in
the products of intellectual labor is, that every one has a
natural right to, and dominion over, his own ideas and
the fruits of his brain-work ; he may keep them to him-
self or impart them to others at his option; but
when once voluntarily published by him, in the absence
of statutory provisions for their protection, they are
beyond his control, and become the property of the pub-
lic, equally available to all. Hence, for the purpose of
promoting science, encouraging literature, and stimulat-
ing inventions, legislation is invoked, by which the
natural rights of authors and inventors are protected,
and the public at the same time benefited by their genius. '
§ 43. Patents for inventions and designs The
practice of patent law is generally a specialty, confined
to a few members of the profession. A thorough knowl-
edge of the subject is essential to the successftd practi-
tioner ; and such a knowledge can be acquired only by a
careful study of the text-books, statutes, and adjudica-
tions relating exclusivel}'' to the law of patents. It will
not, therefore, be attempted in this treatise to do more
than give an outline view of the subject, showing the
nature, and mode of obtaining, a patent, and the general
principles and rules applicable to this species of personal
property,
> 2 Kent Com., pp. 365, 366; 3 Black. Com., p. 406; 1 Sch. Pers.
Prop., p. 654; 3 Id., p. 29; Williams Pers. Prop., p. 235, etseq.; Good-
eve Pers. Prop., pp., 180, 181; Bell's Princp., § 1349; Phillips Pat.,
ch. 11; Drone Copyr., p. 1, et seq.; Bouv. L. Diet., "patent," " copy-
right;" Curtis, Pat. (3 Ed), preliminary obs.
72 PATENTS. [ § 43.
A patent is concisely and accurately defined to he
'■' a grant by the state of the exclusive privilege of mak-
ing, using, and vending, and authorizing others to make,
use, and vend, an invention. ' ' ' The grant by govern-
ment is upon certain conditions ; the grant on one side,
and a compliance with the conditions on the other, con-
stituting in effect a contract. In consideration of the
probable benefits that may accrue to the public from a
knowledge and use of a patentable invention, and also
with the view of stimulating and fostering inventive
genius, the state offers to the inventor its guaranty of an
exclusive right to his invention for a limited period, on
condition that he wiU publish it in such a manner that it
may become available to the public at large on the expi-
ration of his exclusive term, and on certain other pre-
scribed conditions. Under this governmental guaranty,
the inventor retains his exclusive right after publication
for the stipulated term, and has a property therein which
is under the protection of law as fully as any property to
which he may have title.
In the United States, Great Britain, and a majority of
foreign states, the subject of patents is regulated by
statute, and in most, if not all, foreign states having no
legislation on the subject, special privileges are granted
to inventors through the executive departments of their
respective governments.'
The authority for patent legislation in the United
States is derived from the Federal Constitution, which
confers upon Congress the power : "To promote the
• 3 Kent Com., p. 366; Phillips Pat., p. 8.
' Whitman Pat. Law, Part II.
§ 44r.] ESSENTIALS. 73
progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited
times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries. " ' Under this pro-
vision of the Constitution acts of Congress have been
passed from time to time, culminating in the act of revis-
ion and consolidation passed July 8, 1870.'
§ 44. Essentials of a patentable invention or dis-
covery. — -To entitle a person to the privileges and pro-
tection offered by the government, he must, first of all,
present a patentable invention or discovery. The essen-
tials of such invention or discovery, under the laws of
the United States, are as follows :
1. The alleged invention or discovery must be new,
' ' not known or used by others in this country. ' ' Novelty
is essential ; and it is new in contemplation of the patent
law when, and only when, it is suhstomtially different
from what has been known to precede it. '
. In determining the question of novelty, the character
of the result, and not the apparent amount of skill,
ingenuity, or thought, exercised by the inventor, is the
controlling consideration. If the result, or the mode of
producing the result, be substantially different from
what has gone before, the requisite of novelty is so far
satisfied. *
' U. 8. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8.
' U. S. Rev. St. (3 Ed.), §§ 4883-4947; citations mpra under § 42.
» U. S. Rev. St. (3 Ed.), § 4886.
* Curtis Pat., § 41: Kneass v. The Schuylkill Bank, 4 Wash., 9, 11;
Davis V. Palmer, 3 Brock., 398, 310; Hall v. Wiles, 3 Blatchf., 194-
300; Ryan v. Goodwin, 3 Sum., 514, 518; Foote v. Silsby, 3 Blatchf.,
560; Crane v. Price, Webs. Pat. Gas., 409.
74 ESSENTIALS. [ § 44.
The invention must be new as to all the public ; not
the abstract discovery merely, but the concrete invention ;
not the newly discovered principle resting in the brain of
the discoverer, but the principle embodied and utilized
in an "art, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter." '
Moreover, the embodied result of the alleged invention
or discovery must be new, and not merely the purpose to
which it is applied, constituting what is known as "a
double use." Illustrating this essential of novelty,
Buller, J. , said, ' ' it would be a very extraordinary thing
to say that, all mankind having been accustomed to eat
sowp with a spoon, a man could take out a patent because
he says you might eat peas with a spoon. ' ' *
2. Another requisite of a patentable invention is
utility. It must be , both new and useful. The degree
of utility, however, is not important ; but the invention
must have, at least, a small measure of usefulness.
Inventions of a mischievous or immoral nature, and such
as are wholly useless, arenot patentable. For illustra-
tion, in 1870, an application was made for letters patent
for "a new process of making butter, to be used in the
place of ordinary butter. ' ' The process of manufacture
described by the apphcant consisted in taking about ten
' Washburn v. Gould, 3 Story, 132; Reed v. Cutter, 1 Id., 590:
Woodcock V. Parker, 1 Gall., 438; Lowell v. Lewis, 1 Mass., 182;
Allen V. Blunt, 2 Woodb. & M., 121; Parker v. Ferguson, 1 Blatclif.,
407; EUithorp v. Robertson, 4 Id., 307; Manny v. Jagger, 1 Id., 372;
Parkhurst v. Kinsman, Id., 488; Goodyear y. Day, 2 Wall., jr., 283;
Colt V. Mass. Arms Co., 1 Fish., 108.
" Losh V. Hague, 1 Web. Pat. Cas., 207; Benton v. Hawkes, 4 B. &
Aid., 540, 550; Bean v. SmaUwood, 2 Story, 408; Hotchkiss v. Green-
wood, 11 How., 248.
§ 44.] ESSENTIALS. 75
pounds of" ordinary butter, and washing it in clear lime
water; next, warming the butter and mixing it with
sweet milk and flour into paste; and then coloring it
with eggs, carrot, or annotta and tumeric ; thus increas-
ing the weight of the compound to eighteen pounds of
' '■prime dairy hutter. ' ' The application was rejected as
iiot possessing the patentable requisite of utility. '
3. To be patentable, the invention must not have been
known or used by others in this country. The appli-
cant for a patent must have been not only an original,
but the first inventor ; that is, the first inventor who has
reduced his invention to a practical condition. The
statute on the subject contemplates a knowledge and use
existing in a form and condition accessible to the public ;
and, therefore, a machine constructed for experiment
merely, and not completed or practically tested, is no bar
to a patent for a perfected practical invention. '
Two persons may have conceived the same machine,
each being an original inventor ; but the one who first
reduces his conception to practice, or to a condition in
which it may be utilized for its purpose, is the first
inventor, and entitled to a patent. In such case the
maxim applies, ' ' Qui prior est in tempore, prior est in
jure. ' ' '
• Curtis Pat., § 106; Bedford v. Hunt, 1 Mason, 801, 303; Whitney
V. Emmett, 1 Baldw., 803; Manny v. Jagger, suxyra; Stanley v.
Whipple, 2 McLean, 35; Wintermute v. Eeddington, 1 Fish., 239;
Page V. Ferry, Id., 398.
' Eeed v. Cutter, Woodcock v. Parker, Lowell v. Lewis, and Wash-
burn v. Gould, supra; Cahoon v. Ring, 1 Cliflf., 592; Teese v. Phelps,
1 McAll., 48; and Ellithorp v. Robertson, Parkhurst v. Kinsman,
Goodyear v. Day, supra.
• Citations supra ; AUenv. Hunter, 6 McLean, 303; Cox v. Griggs,
76 ESSENTIALS. [ § 44.
4. To entitle an applicant to a patent, the invention
must not have been ' ' patented or described in any printed
publication in this or any :^oreign country, before his
invention or discovery thereof, and not in public use or
on sale for more than two years prior to his application,
unless the same is proved to have been abandoned. ' ' '
The language of the statute is, be it noted, " "before Ms
invention or discovery,^'' and not before his application
for a patent. It may weU happen that a foreign patent,
or the pubhcation mentioned in the statute, ante-dates the
oipplicai/ion, but not the invention / the former of which
the courts say is not sufficient to bar or invahdate a
patent. It is also held, that to give effect to the ' ' printed
pubhcation" mentioned in the statute, the description
therein of the invention must have been so fuU, clear and
■ accurate, that from it a competent mechanic, instructed
in the business to which it relates, could embody and
utilize its principles in a practical manufacture.'
The "two years" clause in the statute is a recogni-
tion and embodiment of a provision first introduced into
our system of patent law by an act of Congress passed
in 1839. Prior to that act, if an inventor consented to
the public use of his invention at any time before appli-
cation for a patent, however limited such use, he might
forfeit his right to a patent. ISTow, he may experiment
2 Fish., 174; Many v Sizer, 1 Id., 17; Singer v. "Walmsley, Id., 558;
Matthews v. Skates, Id,, 602; Rich v. Lippincott, 3 Id., 1; Johnson
V. Root, Id., 291.
' U. S. Rev. Stat. (2 Ed.t, § 4886.
'O'ReiUy V. Morse, 15 How., 62; Smith v. Ely, Id., 137; Parker
V. Stiles, Id., 44; Judson v. Cope, 1 Fish., 615; Hays v. Sulsor, Id.,
532; Bartholomew v. Sawyer, Id., 516; White v. Allen, 2 Fish., 440.
§ 45. J VALID PATENT. 77
himself in private or public, and permit others to use his
invention during the ' ' two years, ' ' without losing his
right, provided it do not appear that he intended to
abandon his invention, or dedicate it to the public'
§ 45. Mode of obtaining, and conditions, of a valid
patent. — If the invention be patentable within the rules
now stated, and the inventor wishes to obtain letters
patent therefor, he must make application to the com-
missioner of patents in the manner prescribed by statute.
The application must be accompanied by a written
description of the invention, "and of the manner and
process of making, constructing, compounding, and using
it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
enable any person skilled in the art or science to which
it appertains, or with which it is most nearly con-
nected, to make, construct, compound, and use .the
same; and in case of a machine, he shall explain the
principle thereof, and the best mode in which he has
contemplated applying that principle, so as to dis-
tinguish it from other inventions; and he shall par-
ticularly point out and distinctly claim the part, improve-
ment, or combination which he claims as his invention or
discovery." '
When the subject of the invention is a composition of
matter, the applicant, when required by the commis-
sioner, must furnish specimens of ingredients, and of the
> MoCormick v. Seymour, 3 Blatchf., 340; s. c, 16 How., 480,
and 19 How., 96; Root v. Ball, 4 McLean, 177; Sanders v. Logan, 3
Fish., 167; Bell v. Daniels, 1 Id., 373; Hovey v. Henry, West. Law
J., 153.
' U. S. Rev. St. (3 Ed.), § 4888, and cases there cited.
78 VALID PATENT. [ § 45.
composition, sufficient in qua,ntity for the purpose of
experiment. '
In oases which admit of representation by model, the
applicant, if required by the commissioner, shall furnish
one of convenient size to exhibit advantageously- the
several parts of the invention or discovery ; and when
the nature of the case admits of drawings, the applicant
must furnish a copy to be filed in the patent office ; and
a copy of these is issued with the patent when granted,
and forms part of the specification."
There are other conditions precedent to the issuance of
letters patent, but these are the most important. Their
purpose is, to render the invention available to the public
on the expiration of the patent ; and hence the requisite
of a specification from which alone the invention could
be constructed and used. The benefit to the pubhc con-
stitutes the principal consideration of the grant, and a
want or failure of consideration would invalidate the
patent. It is of special moment that the inventor's
claim be intelligently and carefuUy stated in the specifi-
cation. It should be as broad as the invention, but no
broader; should clearly discriminate between the old
and the new ; must not contain statements intended to
deceive the public ; and should be free from ambiguity.
A mistake in any of these particulars would be danger-
ous, and might vitiate the grant.
An applicant with a patentable invention, or one that-
the officials at the patent office regard as patentable,
' TJ. S. Rev. St. (3 Ed.), § 4890.
« U. S. Rev. St. (2 Ed.), § 4891 ; Hogg v. Emmerson, 6 How., 437;
MoCormick v. Talcott, 30 Id. , 409.
§ 45. J VALID PATENT. . 79
having complied with all the conditions prescribed by
the government, is entitled to letters patent, granting to
him, "his heirs or assigns, for the term of seventeen
years, the exclusive right to make, use, and vend the
invention or discovery throughout the United States, and
the Territories thereof. ' ' '
Patents thus vgran ted SiXe prima facie valid; but in an
action for infringement, the defendant may defeat the
plaintiEf by shovring the invalidity of the grant on either
of the following grounds :'
First. ' ' That for the purpose of deceiving the public
the description and specification filed by the patentee in
the patent oifice was made to contain less than the whole
truth relative to his invention or discovery, or more than
is necessary to produce the desired effect ; or,
Second. ' ' That he had surreptitiously or unjustly
■obtained the patent for that which was in fact invented
by another, who was using reasonable diligence in adapt-
ing and perfecting the same ; or.
Third. ' ' That it had been patented or described in
some printed publication prior to his supposed invention
•or -discovery thereof ; or,
Fourth. "That he was not the original and first
inventor or discoverer of any material or substantial part
•of the thing patented ; or.
Fifth. ' ' That it had been in public use or on sale in
' U. S. Rev. St. (3 Ed.), § 4884. and cases there cited.
» Curtis Pat., § 473; Alden v, Dewey, 1 Story, 336; Woodworth v.
■Sherman, 3 Id., 173; Stearns v. Barrett, 1 Mason, 153; Minter v.
Wells, Webs. Pat. Cas., 129; Phila. <& Trenton R. Co. v. Stimpson, 14
Pet., 458; U. S. Rev. St. (2 Ed.), § 4930, and cases there cited.
80 OTHEK POINTS OF PATENTS. [ § 46.
this country for more than two years before his applica-
tion for a patent, or had been abandoned to the public. ' '
Unfortunately for sanguine inventors, many patents
are issued that will not bear the test of a thorough judi-
cial investigation.
§ 46. Other points in the law of patents. — There
may be granted for the term of three years and six
months, for seven years, or for fourteen years, as the
applicant may elect, patents for designs; and all the
regulations and provisions of the statutes in relation to
obtaining or protecting patents for inventions or dis-
coveries will apply to patents for designs so far as the
same may be applicable thereto, and not inconsistent with
other provisions of the statutes.'
A patent for a new and useful improvement of an
" art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,"
may be granted with the same rights, and under the
same rules and conditions, as for an original ; but if the
original be patented, the patentee of the improvement
does not, by his grant, acquire any right in the former
patent ; nor does the patentee of the original, by virtue
of his patent, acquire any right in or to the patented
improvement.'
There maj, also, be a valid patent for a combination
of several things, whether the constituents of the com-
bination are, or are not, separately patented. The
' U. S. Rev. St. (3 Ed.), g§ 4939-4993.
' U. S. Rev. St. (3 Ed.), § 4886; Curtis Pat., §§ 35, 42; Rex v. Ark-
wright, Webs. Pat. Cas., 71, 72, 73; Kneass v. The Schuylkill Bank, 4
Wash., 9, 11; Whitney v. Emmett, 1 Baldw., 303; Pitts v. Wemple,
6 McLean, 558; Woodworth v. Rogers, 3 Woodb. & M., 135.
§ 4:6.j OTHER POINTS OF PATENTS. 81
patent, be it noted, is for the combination, and not for
any or all of its elements separately. As the combina-
tion patented consists in the union of a certain number of
things, a union of less than the prescribed number does
not constitute the combination, and is not protected by
the patent ; nor does the use of one or more of the con-
stituent elements, less than the whole number forming
the combination, constitute an infringement of the
patent. If a patent for any of the elements be held by
another, the patentee of the combination does not, by
virtue of his grant, acquire any right in such other
patent; nor does the patentee of the element, by virtue
of his patent, acquire any right to use the patented com-
bination . '
A patent is property, and the owner has the same
right to dispose of it as have the owners of any other
species of personal property. He may assign it in whole
or in part, for aU or a portion of the territory covered by
it, thus giving the assignee a right in the patent itself ;
or he may grant special licenses under it, giving the
licensee the privilege of making, using, or selling the
invention, on payment of a royalty.
For infringement of a valid patent the law affords
ample remedies in the Federal Courts, by actions at law,
suits in equity, and injunctions."
There are other questions connected with the law of
patents ; but they are not essential to a general view of
' 1 Curtis Pat. §§ 111, 333; Buck v. Hermanoe, 1 Blatchf., 398; For-
bush V. Cook, 20 Law R., 664; Barrett v. Hall, 1 Mason, 447; Pitts v.
Whitman, 3 Story, 609; Lee v. Blandy, 3 Fish., 89; Pitts v. Wemple,
6 McLean, 558.
' U. S. Eev. St. (8 Ed.), §§ 4919, 4993; Curtis Pat., §§ 494-499.
6
8^ COPTEIGHT. [ § 4/.
the principles involved in the subject, and are omitted
from this discussion for the same reasons stated sv^ra,
under § 43.
A few, only, of the numerous authorities on the sub-
ject of patent law have been cited in the outline view
■now presented.
§ 47. Copyright. — This product of intellectual labor
furnishes another instance of title to personal property
by original acquisition. "Copyright is the exclusive
right of the owner to multiply and to dispose of copies of
an intellectual production. It is the sole right to the
copy or to copy it. " ' Otherwise stated it "is the exclu-
sive right of the owner to possess, use, and dispose of
intellectual productions," which have the attributes of
property ' ' when embodied in written or spoken lan-
guage. ' ' '
The nature and source of this right has been the sub-
ject of much learned discussion ; the principal question
being its source, whether a natural right recognized and
protected by the common law, or a statutory grant ; and
if the former, whether the right is lost by publication,
or destroyed by statute. ' The limited scope of this work
will not permit a presentation of the arguments and
authorities pro and con; nor is such a presentation
requisite to a correct statement of the law of copyright
as now settled. A full and very able historical and
critical discussion of the subject may be found in ' ' Drone
' Drone Copyr., pp. 100, 101; Williams Pers. Prop , p. 246.
' Drone Copyr., pp. 97, 98.
' Drone Copyr., pp. 1, 2.
§ 47.] COPYRIGHT. 83
on Copyright," to which reference is herein freely made
as the best service the author could render his readers.
It seems quite clear that, prior to the statute of Anne
in 1710,' the common law right was unquestioned in
England; and that for half a century thereafter the
courts of chancery recognized the right, holding in effect
that it was not lost by publication, or destroyed fcy
statute.' In the case of Milla/r v. Taylor^ decided by
the Court of K. B. in 1769, the question was thoroughly
discussed, and decided in accordance with the opinions of
Lord Mansfield and Justices Aston and Willes, sustaining
the common law right, Justice Yates dissenting. But
five years later the House of Lords decided the question
adversely to the Court of K. B. , holding that the com-
mon law right, if any existed, could not be exercised
beyond the time limited by statute.'
The English statute was copied by Congress in 1790,
and the Supreme Court of the United States, in Whea^n
V. Peters,* decided in 1834, followed the English case of
Donaldson v. Becket.
It is now the settled doctrine, both in England and the
United States, that at common law the author of an
unpublished literary composition has an absolute prop-
erty therein. It is personal property, and governed by
the same rules, and entitled to the same protection, as
other personal property. But when published in print,
the common law right is lost, unless protected by statute ;
' 8 Anne, Ch. 19.
' Drone Copyr., pp. 1, 54-83; Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burr., 3303.
« Donaldson v. Becket, 4 Burr., 3408; and Drone Copyr., cited supra.
* 8 Pet., 591; and see citations supra.
84 STATQTOEY EIGHT. [ § ^8.
the author or proprietor having then ' ' no exclusive com-
mon law right to multiply copies, or to control the sub-
sequent issue of copies by others;" the right to multiply
copies to the exclusion of others being the creation of
statute. '
Practically, in this country, the proprietary right after
publication, namely, the exclusive right to the profits of
publication, rests upon, and is regulated and protected by,
the acts of Congress.
§ 48. How to secure the statutory right. — The
same constitutional provision which gives to Congress
jurisdiction of the subject of patents, confers upon it
authority to legislate on the subject of copyright." By
virtue of this authority Congress has enacted ° that :
" Any citizen of the United States or resident therein,
who shall be the author, inventor, designer, or proprietor
of any book, map, chart, dramatic or musical composi-
tion, engraving, cut, print, or photograph or negative
thereof, or of a painting, drawing, chromo, statue, statu-
ary, and of models or designs intended to be perfected as
works of the fine arts, and the executors, administrators,
or assigns of any such person shall, upon complying with
the provisions of this chapter, have the sole liberty of
printing, reprinting, publishing, completing, copying,
executing, finishing, and vending the same ; and, in the
'Drone Copyr., pp. 101-104; Donaldson v. Becket, 4 Burr, 2408;
Oolburn v. Simms, 2 Hare, 543; JefEerys v. Boosey, 4 H. L. C, 963;
Prince Albert v. Strange, 2 De G. & Sm.', 652; Wheaton v. Peters, 8
Pet., 591; Pulte v. Derby, 5 McLean, 328; Palmer v. De Witt, 47
N. Y., 533; Rees v. Peltzer, 75 111., 475; Boucicaultv. Wood,3Biss.,34.
'U. S. Const., Art. I., §8.
• U. S. Rev. St. (2d Ed.), g 4952.
§ 48.] SXATUTOKX EIGHT. 85
case of a dramatic composition, of publicly performing or
representing it, or causing it to be performed or repre-
sented by others. And authors may reserve the right to
dramatize or to translate their own works."
To entitle a person to a copyright he must,
1. Before publication, "deliver at the office of the
librarian of Congress, or deposit in the mail addressed to
the librarian of Congress, at Washington, District of
Columbia, a printed copy of the title of the book or other
article, or a description of the painting, drawing, chromo,
statue, statuary, or a model or design of a work of the flue
arbs, for which he desires a copyright." '
2. "JS'ot later than the day of the publication thereof in
this or any foreign country, deliver at the office of the
librarian of Congress, at Washington, District of Columbia,
two copies of such copyright book or other article; or in
case of a painting, drawing, statue, statuary, model, or de-
sign for a work of the fine arts, a photograph of the same. ' ' ^
3. "The proprietor of every copyright book or other
article shall deliver at the office of the librarian of Con-
gress, or deposit in the mail addressed to the librarian of
Congress at Washington, District of Columbia, not later
than the day of the publication thereof in this or any for-
eign country two complete printed copie ■. thereof, of the best
edition issued, or description or photograph of such article
as hereinbefore required, and a copy of every subsequent
edition wherein any substantial changes shall be made." '
1 U. S. Rev. St. (2 Ed.), § 4956.
2 U. S. Rcv. St. (2 Ed.), ? '4956.
» U. S. Rev. St. (2 Ed.), i 4959.
86 " STATUTOET EIGHT. [ § ^8-
For a failure to comply with either of the last two pro-
visions the proprietor of the copyright is liable to a pen-
alty of twenty -five dollars,' '
4. Pay to the librarian of Congress for recording the
title or description of any copyright book or other article,
fifty cents ; and for every copy under seal of such record
actually given to the person claiming the copyright, or his
assigns, fifty cents.'
A compliance with the foregoing conditions secures to
the author, inventor, or designer, a copyright for the
term of twenty-eight years.'
And, upon recording the title of the work, or descrip-
tion of the article so secured, a second time, and comply-
ing with all other regulations in regard to original copy-
right, within six months before the expiration of the first
term, the author, inventor, or designer, if he be still liv-
ing and a citizen of the United States or a resident
therein, or his widow or children if he be dead, shall
have the same exclusive right continued for the further
term of fourteen years. ' ' And such person shall, withih
two months from the date of said renewal, cause a copy
of the record thereof to be published in one or more
newspapers, printed in tlie United States, for the space
of four weeks. ' ' *
Literary property in'unpublished work, being personal,
is assignable, and governed by the general rules applica-
' U S. Rev. St. (2 Ed.), § 4960.
' U. S. Rev. St. (3 Ed.), § 4958.
» U. S. Rev. St. (3 Ed.), § 4953.
« U. S. Rev. St. (2 Ed.), § 4954.
§ 49. J ESSENTIALS TO COPYKIGHT. 87
ble to other personal property.' And copyright is
expressly made assignable by statute.*
To entitle the owner to maintain an action for infringe-
ment of his copyright, he must ' ' give notice thereof by
inserting in the several copies of every edition published,
on the title page or the page immediately following it, if
it be a book ; or if a map, chart, musical composition,
print, cut, engraving, photograph, painting, drawing,
chromo, statue, statuary, or model, or design intended to
be perfected and completed as a work of the fine arts, by
inscribing upon some portion of the face or front thereof,
or on the face of the substance on which the same shall
be mounted, the following words, ' Entered according to
Act of Congress, in the year , by A. B. , in the office
of the librarian of Congress, at "Washington. ' ' Or,
' Copyright, 18 , by A. B.' " *
A person inserting or impressing such notice, who has
not obtained a copyright, is liable to a penalty of one
hundred dollars. '
§ 49. Essentials to copyright. — Legislation is silent
in regard to the character and qualities essential to copy-
right, and the law must be sought in judicial records. On
several points the courts have spoken, and the following
rules may be regarded as established :
1, Originality. — That originality is essential to copy-
• Drone Copyr. p. 104, et seq. ; Palmer v. DeWitt, 47 N. Y., 538; Par-
ton v. Prang, 3 CUflf., 537, 550; Little v. Gould, 2 Blatohf., 165, 363.
» U. S Rev. St. (3 Ed.), g 4955; Stat. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, s. 25.
' U. S. Rev. St. (3 Ed.), § 4963.
* Drone Copyr. p. 265, n. 8.
' U. S. Rev. St. (2 Ed.), § 4963.
88 ESSENTIALS TO OOPYEIGHT. [ § 4:9.
right admits of no reasonable doubt. The constitutional
authority to legislate on the subject was given to Con-
gress for the purpose of promoting ' ' the progress of
science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times
to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries. ' ' ' Both the letter
and the spirit of this provision demand originality and
exclude plagiarism ; require honesty and give no counte-
nance to fraud; and on this point the courts are in
accord. But what constitutes originality, or when that
requisite is wanting in a work, it is not always easy to
determine. The test of originality furnished by Mr.
Drone is the following : "In all cases, whatever may
be the kind or character of the work for which protec-
tion is claimed, the true test of originality is whether the
production is the result of independent labor, or of copy-
ing. A close resemblance between two publications may
afford strong evidence of copying; and in some cases,
especially when the similarity is not explained, it may
amount to conclusive proof of piracy. But, when it is
established that a work is the result of honest authorship,
its likeness to another publication is immaterial." '
2. Merit or value. — That a production should possess
some merit or value, literary or other, to entitle it to the
privilege and protection of the copyright law is quite
obvious. There are quite enough objects and subjects of
weighty human interest to engage the genius and labor
of writers and compilers of every grade, without adding
to the catalogue things of no value or importance. But
> U. S. Const, Art. I., § 8; Drone Copyr., pp. 198-208.
' Drone Copyr., p. 208.
§ 49. J ESSENTIALS TO COPYEIGHT. 89
mere literary merit is not essential to copyright ; it is
enough that a production may contribute to useful knowl-
edge; and the courts have been quite liberal in this
direction, extending the protection of the copyright law
to compilations of various kinds, annotations consisting
of common materials, collections of statistics, calendars,
catalogues, and other compilations involving no literary
ability."
3. Seditious or libellous puhlications. — The law uni-
versally condemns publications which are seditious and
libellous, and cannot, therefore, consistently extend to
them its protection. Such publications are justly treated
as outlaws. On this point there is no ground for con-
trariety of judicial opinion, and none is found in reported
cases. '
4. Immoral productions. — These,_ like seditious and
libellous publications, are under the condemnation of the
law, and excluded from its protection. The law has no
higher or nobler function than the encouragement and
protection of public and private morality. This truth is
expressed in the spirit of Blackstone's definition of
municipal law, " a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the
supreme power in the state, commanding what is right
' Drone Copyr , pp 153, 208-213; Folsom v. Marsh, 3 Story. 109;
Scoville V. Tolland, 6 West. Law Jour., 84; Collender v. Griffith, 11
Blatohf., 311; Lawrence v. Dana, 3 Am. L. T. R. N. S., 433; Jarrold
V. Houlston, 3 Kay & J., 708; Pike v. Nicholas, 20 L. T. N. S., 906;
Gray v. Russell, 1 Story, 11; Story's Ex'rs. v. Holcombe, 4 McLean,
306; Barfieldv. Nicholson, 2 Sim. & St., 1; Carey v. Faden, 5 Ves.,
34; Matthewson v. Stockdale, 12 Ves., 270; Scott v. Stanford, Law
Rep. 3 Eq., 718; Lawrence v. Dana, 2 Am. L. T. R. N. S., 403.
' Drone Copyr., pp. 113-114, 181-185.
90 ESSENTIALS TO COI'VRIGIIT. [ § ^9.
and prohibiting what is wrong. ' ' ' This definition has
been criticised as in some respects inaccurate ; but it may
well be questioned whether the criticisms are not hyper-
critical."
5. Blasphemous pxMications. — From the principles
already stated it is clear that publications of a blasphe-
mous character cannot be the subjects of copyright, and
are not, of course, under the protection of copyright law.
This rule is recognized and enforced by the courts, both
in Great Britain and the United States. But, what con-
stitutes blasphemy, and what liberty is permitted to an
author in treating of religious subjects, are perplexing
questions for judicial determination. The decisions on
the subject do not furnish a satisfactory solution of the
questions ; and from the nature of the case it seems quite
impossible to establish a definite and universal rule for
the trial and test of every case that may arise. The con-
dition of society, the character of the government, the
local laws, public opinion, and the sentiments of the tri-
bunal, wiU to a greater or less extent affect the decision
of each particular case presented for adjudication.
While, therefore, there is unity of judicial opinion regard-
ing the principle involved, there will necessarily be diver-
sity in its application, even where the facts are substan-
tially the same.
From the liberal character of the government of the
United States, and the freedom of religious belief and
' 1 Black Com., p. 44.
« Drone Copyr., pp. 112-114, 185-187; Stoctdale v. Onwhyn, 5
Bam. & C, 173; Martinetti v. Maguire, 1 Deady, 216; Keene v.
Kimball, 16 Gray, (82 Mass.), 548; Shook v. Daly, 49 How. Pr., 366,
368
§ 50. J REMEDIES FOE INFRINGEMENT. 91
worship accorded to all its citizens, it may reasonably be
inferred that large liberty of discussion and publication
on moral and religious subjects would be permitted. And
such is the fact, as appears from our comparatively
meager judicial records involving the subject. But in
this country, nevertheless, there are limitations to the
liberty of speech and the press ; and there is such a thing
as hlasphemy known to the law, and punishable as a
crime.'
§ 50. Remedies for infringement Both the common
law and statutory rights of authors and proprietors of
brain products are amply protected by law. Eemedies
by actions at law, suits in equity, and injunction, are
available for any invasion of these rights.
In the case of common law property, if the owner's
manuscriiJt be published in print, his dramatic or musical
composition be publicly performed, or copies of hia work
of art be either publicly circulated or exhibited, without
his consent, his rights are invaded ; and in such case the
State courts are open to the injured party for redress.'
Tor a violation of statutory copyright the remedies,
legal and equitable, are provided by the statutes which
confer the right ; but in such cases the remedies must be
sought in the Federal courts.*
' Drone Copyr, pp. 187-196 ; People v. Buggies, 3 Johns., 890 ; Com-
monwealth V. Kneeland, 30 Pick. 206, 320 ; Updegraph v. Common-
wealth. 11 Serg. & R., 394 ; 1 Bishop Crim. L. §§ 497, 498 ; 3 Id. g§
74-78.
• Drone Copyr. pp. 107-110; Pahner v. DeWitt, 47 N. T., 533.
> U. S. Rev. St. (3 Ed.), §§ 4963-4970 ; Drone Copyr. pp. 544-552,
496 et seq.
S2 LETTEKS. [ § 51,
§ 51. Letters from one correspondent to another. —
Letters addressed from one correspondent to another are
■classed with products of intellectual labor, and possess
substantially the same proprietary qualities as other
unpublished manuscripts.
"When written and sent, to whom do they belong, the
writer or the receiver ? Or, more accurately, in whom is
the property of the writing ? This question has elicited
<jonsiderable discussion by the courts ; but the doctrine
may now be regarded as settled, that the writer has a
literary property in his letters, which is not lost by their
transmission to the receiver.' From this doctrine it
follows, as a general rule, that the receiver has no right
to publish the letters without the consent of the writer ;
and such publication wUl be enjoined by a court of
■equity.'
It has been judicially held that a court of equity will
interpose by injunction for the reason that the unauthor-
ized publication of private letters is an act of bad faith
tending to a disturbance of the public peace, a violation
of the obligations of ' ' social ethics, ' ' and subversive of
that free interchange of opinions and sentiments essential
to a well-conditioned state of society." Wtile such pub-
lication may be justly obnoxious to aU these criticisms, it
' Drone Copyr , p. 137; Duke of Queensbury v. Shebbear, 3 Eden,
539; Thompson v. Stanhope, Amb., 733; Pope v. Curl, 3 Atk., 343;
Granard v. Dunkin, 1 Ball & B., 307; Perceval v. Phipps, 2 Ves. &
B., 19; How V. Gunn, 33 Beav., 463; Dennis v. Leclerc, 1 Mart.,
-(Orleans T.) 397; United States v. Tanner, 6 McLean, 138; Woolsey v.
Judd, 4 Duer, 379; Eyre v. Higbee. 33 How. Pr., 198; Grigsby v.
Breckinridge, 3 Bush, (Ky.) 480.
' See cases cited under last paragraph.
» Folsom V. Marsh, 3 Story, 111.
§ 51. J ^ LETTEES. 93
is not, according to the prevailing doctrine, for any or
all of these that a court of equity exercises its restraining
power, but solely on the ground of protection to the
literary property of the writer. '
There are exceptions to the rule that the writer is the
owner of the property in the letters written by him.
For example, the letters of an emiploye written in and
concerning the business of his employer." So, also,
official letters written by officers of the government
belong to the government, with the right to publish
them or to refrain from so doing, at will, and to restrain
their unauthorized publication ; and this on the ground
of public policy.'
Does the property of the writer depend at all upon the
literary merit of his letters ? The affirmative of this
question has been held in some reported cases." But the
weight of authority decides the question in the negative;
and reason approves the decision.' Theoretically, and in
contemplation of the law, every letter has literary merit
in which a property exists ; albeit the quomtum may be
microscopic, and undiscoverable by ordinary perception.
Practically, however, the wisdom of this rule is apparent
in view of the difficulty of drawing the line between the
lowest degree of literary merit and zero. The opposite
' Gee V. Pritchard, 3 Swans., 413; Woolsey v. Judd, 4 Duer, 384;
Grigsby v. Breckenridge, SBush (Ky.), 486; Perceval v. Phipps, 2Ves.
& B., 24; Whitmore V. Scovell, BEdw. Ch., 320.
« Howard v. Gunn, 33 Beav., 462.
' Drone Copyr., p 133; Folsom v. JJarsh, 2 Story, 113.
■• Perceval v. Phipps, 3 Ves. & B., 28; Whitmore v. Scovell, 3 Edw.
Ch., 515; Hoyt v. Mackenzie, 3 Barb. Ch., 330.
' Woolsey v. Judd, 4 Duer, 379; Grigsby v. Breckinridge, 2 Bush
(Ky.), 480; Drone Copyr., pp. 133-135.
94: LECTUEES. [ § ^2.
rule would render the administratioti of the law on this
subject embarrassing, uncertain, and unequal; as no
standard of literary merit could be prescribed that would
suit all tribunals, and measure aU cases.
"What rights, if any, has the receiver in a letter
addressed to him ? So far as this question has been
passed upon by the courts, the doctrine seems to be
established that, while he has no literary property in the
letter, he has a corporeal property in the material on
which it is written.' He has the right to retain posses-
sion of it, and is not bound to preserve it for the benefit
of the writer.'
It has been held in several cases that the receiver may
publish a letter when it becomes necessary for the pur-
pose of vindicating his reputation from false charges or
unjust imputations made by the writer. ' But Mr. Drone
dissents emphatically from this holding, and his reason-
ing on the point is cogent.'
§ 5'i. Lectures. — Manifestly lectures are a product of
brain-work; and, on principle and judicial authority,
their creator has a common law proprietary right in
them before publication, on the same ground that sup-
ports an author's right in other unpublished manuscripts.'
On first view it may be thought that a lecture orally
' Drone Copyr., pp. 135, 136; Pope v. Curl, 3 Atk., 343; Oliver v.
Oliver, 11 C. B., n. s., 139; Eyre v. Higbee, S3 How. Pr., 198; Grigsby
V. Breckinridge, supra.
' See cases cited last, supra.
' Perceval v. Phipps, 3 Ves. & B., 19; Folsom v. Marsh, 8 Story,
111; Woolsey v. Judd, 4 Duer, 379, 407.
* Drone Copyr., p. 138, 139.
' Drone Copyr. , p. 107.
§ 52. J LEGTUEES. 95
delivered cannot be regarded as a manuscript and entitled
to protection as such ; but the courts will assume that the
lecturer has a written composition, either in full or in
skeleton, from which he speaks memoriter, and is, there-
fore, the author of a manuscript represented in the oral
delivery.
But, will the public reading, or the oral delivery, of a
lecture by the author operate as an abandonment of his
exclusive proprietary right therein, and deprive him of legal
protection from piratical appropriation of his brain-pro-
duct? If so, the right would be of very little, if any,
value to the author ; for most lectures are prepared for
public delivery. Both reason and the weight of judicial
authority concur in the rule, that a public reading or oral
delivery of a lecture is not to be regarded as in itself a
relinquishment of title by the author, or as operating to
divest him of his property in the manuscript. Where
persons are admitted, as pupils or otherwise, to hear
public lectures, it is upon the implied confidence and con-
tract that they will not use any means to injure or take
away the exclusive right of the lecturer in his own
lectures. They may take notes for their own informa-
tion, but may not publish them for profit."
In the analagous case of playright, the qyestion of pub-
lication has undergone much discussion by the courts, and
their reasoning and opinions, applicable to lectures as
well, sustain the doctrine just stated. An interesting and
instructive history of this discussion wiU be found in
Drone on Copyright.'
' Drone Copyr. pp. 118, 119, 554-584; 3 Kent Com. pp. 378, 379; Bart-
lett V. Crittenden, 4 McLean, 300; s. c. 5 Id., 83.
» Pp. 554-584; and see Palmer v DaWitt, 47 N. Y., 532; Thompkins
V. HaUeck, 133 Mass., 33; s. c. 43 Am. Rep., 480.
96 TEADE-MAEKS. [ § 53.
In England the sole privilege of publishing their lectures
is secured to authors by statute,' which affords protection
against piracy. But ' ' lectures delivered in any university
or public school or college, or on any public foundation,
or by any individual in virtue of or according to any gift,
endovrment or foundation, ' ' are excepted from the opera-
tion of this act.
In the United States a remedy is given by statute for
the unauthorized publication of a manuscript."
For a violation of the author's right he may maintain
an action at law ; and, in a proper case, a court of equity
will interpose by injunction. '
The remedies are available in a state court; and a
citizen or resident of the United States may obtain redress
in a Federal court.*
§ 53. Trade-marks. — Property in trade-marks is gen-
erally and properly classed under the first general mode
of acquiring title to personal property, that of original
acquisition.
A trade-mark has been well defined as "the name,
symbol, figure, letter, form or device, adopted and used
by a manufacturer, or merchant, in order to designate
the goods that he manufactures, or sells, and distinguish
them from those manufactured or sold by another ; to
the end that they may be known in the market as his,
' 5 & 6 "Will. rv. c. 65; Drone Copyr., p. 658; Groode. Pers. Prop., pp.
317, 218.
' U. S. Eev. St. (3 Ed.), § 4967; Drone Copyr., pp. 124-127.
' U. S. Rev. St. (2 Ed.), § 4967; Drone Copyr., p. 124: Boucicault v.
Hart, 13 Blatchf., 47.
* Drone Copyr., pp. 545, 546; Palmer v. DeWitt, 47 N. Y., 533.
§ 64.] A COMMON LAW EIGHT. 97
and thus enable him to secure such profits as result from
a reputation for superior skill, industry or enterprise. ' ' '
§ 54. A common law right. — A trade-mark is the
creature of common law, and not like the subjects of
patents and copyright, dependent upon statute for exist-
ence or protection. The two species of property, espe-
cially trade-marks and copyright, are sometimes con-
founded; but, while having some features in common,
they are essentially different in character. Copyright
property, as we have seen,' is the exclusive right of mul-
tiplying and vending copies of original productions of the
niind, and "is a property in the thing itself, the words,
letters, designs or symbols, which are the signs of things,
and the forms and embodiment of thdught." While
trade-marks are property, "not in the words, letters,
designs and symbols, as things, as signs of thought, as.
productions of the mind; but simply and solely as a
meafis of designating thvngs ; the things thus designated
being the productions of human skill, or industry,
whether of the mind or the hand, or a combination of
both.'"
' Upton, Trade-marks, p. 9; and see 3 Bouv. L. Diet., "trade-
marks;" Newman V, Alvord, 61 N. Y., 139; Hostetter v. Adams, 30
Blatch. C. C, 336; Lawrence Manuf. Co. v. Lowell Hosiery iVlills, 139
Mass., 335; s. c. 37 Am. Rep., 363; Hier v. Abraham, 83 N. Y., 519;
Thornton v. Crowley, 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. (15 J. & S), 537; Am. Solid
Leather Button Co. v. Anthony Cowell Co., 3 New Engl. Rep., 630;
Ferguson V. Davol Mills, 7 Phila., 353; s. c 3 Brewst., 314; Board-
man V. Meriden Brittania Co., 35 Conn., 403,
' Supra, § 47.
' Upton, Trade-marks, pp. 14, 15; Dr. Jaeger's Sanitary Woolen
System Co. v. Le B'outillier, 47 Hun, 531; Skinner v. Oakes, 10 Mo.
App., 45; Atlantic Milling Co. v. Robinson, 30 Fed. Rep., 317; Shaver
V. Shaver, 54 Iowa, 308; s. c. 37 Am. Rep., 194
7
98 WHAT MAY CONSTITUTE A TEADE-MAEK. [ § 55.
A very stringent and carefully drawn statute on the
subject of trade-marks, was passed by Congress in 1870,
and amended in 1876.' But this law was held to be
unconstitutional by the Federal courts." The provision of
the United States Constitution for securing ' ' to authors
and inventors the exclusive right to their respective
writings and discoveries," on which the law of patents
and copyright is based, does not apply to trade-marks.'
There are also provisions in the laws of Congress look-
ing to the protection of domestic manufacturers from the
copying, or simulation, of their names or trade-mark on
imported merchandise.*
§ 55. What may constitute a trade-mark. — By the
definition svpra,'' a trade-mark may consist of a name,
symbol, figure, letter, form or device. But it should be
noticed that a name or word which expresses only the
quality, kind, texture, composition, or utility of an arti-
cle, win not be protected as a trade-mark. The use of
such names and words is common, and equally free to aU;
and no one person, therefore, can monopolize their exclu-
sive use for his own benefit.*
' U. S. Rev. St. (3 Ed.), §§ 4937-4947.
' Leidersdorf v. Flint, 8 Biss., C. C, 327; afBrmed on appeal to the
U. S. Supreme Court.
« United States v. Steflfens, 100 U. S., 82; and see United States v.
Roche, 1 McCrary, C. C, 385.
* U. S. Rev. St. (2 Ed.), § 2496; U. S. St. 1882-83, § 2496; U. S. St.
1889-90, § 7.
'§53.
« Corwin v. Daly, 7 Bosw., 223 ; Wolfe v. Goulard, 18 How. Pr., 64;
Fetridge V. Wells, 13 Id., 385 , Evans v. VonLaer, 83 Fed. Rep. 153 ;
Colgau V. Danheiser, 35 Id. , 150; Runneford Chemical Works v. Muth,
Id., 5'.'4; Smith v. Walker, 57 Mich., 456; Hornbottle v.- Kinney, 53N.
§ 56. J BY WHOM ACQUIEED. 99
. The same rule applies to marks, symbols, letters, and
figures, which are used only to denote the quality, grade,
appropriate name, or the peculiar mode or process of man-
ufacture of the article to which they are applied.'
But it has been held that marks, such as arbitrary com-
binations of figures, indicating style or quality, which
also indicate origin, may be the subject of a trade-
mark.'
§ 66. By whom acquired Trade-marks are a species
of personal property;" and may be acquired by any per-
son capable of acquiring and possessing other kinds of
personal property, an alien as well as a citizen.* But the
exclusive right can exist only in a person who, in some
form, and to some extent, possesses an exclusive right in
the property to which it is appended. It is not an
abstract right to the exclusive use of a certain mark,
dissociated from the article or property which its use is to
Y., Super. Ct. 41; Hostetter v. Adams, 20 Blatchf. C. C, 326; Fleisch-
erman v. Newman, 16 N. Y. State Rep., 794.
' Royal Baking Powder Co. v. Sherrell, 93 N. Y., 331; Amoskeag
Manuf Co. v. Trainer, 101 U. S., 51; Same v. Spear, 2 Sandf. Super.
Ct.,599.
' Am. Solid Leather Button Co. v. Anthony Crowell & Co., 2 New
Eng. Rep., 680; Boardman v. Meriden Britannia Co., 35 Conn., 403;
Lawrence Co. v. Lowell Mills, 139 Mass., 325; Gillott v. Esterbrook,
48N. Y.,374.
' Bradley v. Norton, 33 Conn., 157; Huwer v. Dannenhoflet, 83 N.
Y., 499, 502; The Leather Cloth Co. v. The Am. Leather Cloth Co. De-
Gex, J. & S., 137; s. c. 11 House of L'ds. Cas., 533; The Glen & Hale
Manuf. Co. v. Hall, 61 N, Y., 326.
* Taylor v. Carpenter, 3 Story, 458; The Collins Co. v. Brown, 3 Kay
& J , 433; Same V. Cowen, Id., 428; Coats v. Holbrook, 3 Sandf., Ch.
586; Cofleen v. Brunton, 4 McLean, 516.
100 FEEEDOM FEOM FEAUD. [ § ^7.
designate, and distinguish from other articles of the same
general character.'
The question has been under judicial consideration,
whether a drawing or picture of an article may be used
as a trade-mark. It would not be safe to affirm that this
question has been definitively settled. The courts, of this
country, so far as they have spoken on this point, and
the English courts, do not seem to be in accord ; the for-
mer inclining to the affirmative," and the latter to the
negative, of the question.-
§ 57. Freedom from fraud. — The right of a party to
a trade-mark will not be recognized by tlie courts where
he is guilty of fraud or deception in its acqusition or use.
Courts of equity exercise jurisdiction in trade-mark cases
for a two-fold purpose : First, to stimulate and reward
skill and honesty in trade and manufactures ; and, sec-
ondly, to protect the public against fraud and imposition
by unscrupulous dealers, who seek to pass off spurious
and inferior commodities for the genuine. Hence the
just and wise rule that, no person can establish an exclu-
sive right to a trade-mark acquired dishonestly, or used
for fraudulent purposes. *
' Atlantic Milling Co. v. Robinson, 30 Fed. Rep , 317; Skinner v.
Oakes, 10 Mo. App., 45; Ferguson v. Davol Mills, 7 Phila., 353; s. c. 2
Brewst, 214; Congress & Empire Spring Co. t. High Rock Congress
Spring Co., 45 N. Y., 291; Cotton v. Gillard, 44 L. J. (N. S.) Ch., 90;
Samuel v. Berger, 4 Abb. Pr. Rep. , 8.
» In re Pratt, 10 U. S. Pat Gaz., 866; Tucker Manuf. Co. v. Boying-
ton, 9 Id., 455; Ex parte Halliday, 16 Id., 506 ; Exparte Smith, Id.,
179. And see Popham v. Cole, 66 N. Y., 69.
» James v. Parry, 55 L. T. Rep., N. S., 415; s. c. 35, Albany L. J., 13.
« Fetridge v. Wells, 13 How. Pr. Rep., 385 ; Pai-tridge v. Menck,
How. App. Gas , 547; Perry v. Truefltt, 6 Beav., 66; Fowle v. Spear,
§ 58. J HOW ACQTJIKED. 101
, § 58. How acquired. — Property in a trade-mark is
primarily acquired by adoption and use by the manufac-
turer, or other person possessed of an exclusive right in
the thing to which it is applied.' No duration of time as
to the use is requisite to create the property right.'
To give an exclusive right, the use of the trade-mark
by the person adopting and claiming it must be new,
having never previously been used in appliance to a like
article. '
Property in a trade-mark may, also, be acquired by a
voluntary transfer from the person whose title originated
ia adoption and use.* But, as we have seen supra," the
abstract trade-mark is not assignable when disconnected
with the thing designated by it; the right either to
manufacture or sell the merchandise to which the mark
7 Penn. L. J., 176; Hobbs v. Francis, 19 How. Pr. Eep., 567; Siegert
V. Abbott, 61 Md., 376; s. c. 48 Am. Rep. 101; Bucklandv. Eioe, 40
Ohio St., 536; Manhattan Medicine Co. v. Wood, 108 U. S., 318; Lan-
dreth v. Landreth, 33 Fsd. Rep., 41; DeKuyper v. Witteman, 33 Id.,
871.
' Upton Trade-marks, pp. 46, 47; Derringer v. Plate, 39 Cal., 393;
FUley V. Fassett, 44 Mo., 168; Candee v. Deere, 54 El., 439; Bradbury
V. Beeton, 39 Law J. Rep. Ch. (N. S.), 57.
5 HaU V. Barrows, 8L. T. (N. S.), 337; s. c. on appeal, 9L. T. (N. S.),
561; Brown Trade-marks, § 353.
3 VanBeU V. Prescott, 83 N. Y., 630; Derringer" v. Plate, 39 Cal.,
393; Upton Trade-marks, pp. 46,, 47.
* Hoxie V. Chaney, 143 Mass , 593; s. c. 58 Am. Rep., 149; Morgan
V. Rogers, 19 Fed. Rep., 596; Hegeman&Co. v. Hegeman, 8 Daly, 1;
Matter of Swezy, 63 How., 315; Walton v. Crowley, 3 Blatchf. C. C,
440; The Leather Cloth Qo. v. The j4^m. Leather Cloth Co., Pe Gex,
J. & S., 137; 8. c. 11 House of L'ds Cases, 533; The Glen & Hali
Manuf. Co. v. Hall, 61 N. Y., 336, 330; Huwer v. Dennenhoffer, 8a
Id., 499, 503.
Ȥ56.
102 INFEINGEMENT. [ § 59.
has been applied must go with it, or no title wijl vest in
the assignee; the original proprietor can transfer no
greater right than that possessed by himself, which is,
simply, the exclusive right to use the mark to designate,
and distinguish from articles of the same general char-
acter, the merchandise which he manufactures or sells. '
So, also, property in a trade-mark wiU pass by opera-
tion of law. On the decease, or bankruptcy, of the
proprietor of a trade-mark, the property in it passes to
the party lawfully succeeding to the control of the busi-
ness in which the mark was- used."
§ 59. Infringement. — The violation of a trade-mark
consists in the unauthorized application of it, or of a
colorable imitation of it, to the goods manufactured or
sold by the wrong-doer, under the fraudulent representa-
tion that they are the genuine merchandise of the pro-
prietor; whereby purchasers and consumers may be
deceived, and the owner of the trade-mark damnified.'
From the' definition of an infringement, and the
authorities cited, it will appear that a colorable imitation
calculated to deceive the purchaser without a close inspec-
tion, will constitute a violation of the proprietor's right,
' Samuel v. Burger, 4 Abb. Pr. Bep., 88; Atlantic Milling Co. v.
Robinson, 20 Fed. Rep., 317.
' Huwer v. DannenhofEer, 83 N. Y., 499, 503; Matter of Swezy, 63
How. , 315; Croft v. Day, 7 Beav. , 84; Upton Trade-marks, p. 80, et seq.
* Newman v Alvord, 49 Barb., 588; Enoch Morgan Sons' Co. v.
Sohwackhoefer, 55. How. Pr. R., 37; s. c. 5 Abb. N. C, 365; N. Y.
Cab. Co. V. Mooney, 15 Abb. N. C, 153; Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.
V. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. of Kansas, 31 Id., 104; Godillott v.
Harris, 81 N. Y., 363; Robertson v. Berry, 50 Md., 591.
§ 60. j EBMEDIES FOB INFEINGEMENT. 103
and entitle him to legal _ and equitable relief. ' But this
rule does not include a case in which the simulation
would not deceive a person of ordinary prudence ; the
maxim in such case applying, ' ' Yigilomtibus non dormi-
entibus leges suhvenumt. ' ' '
§ 60. Remedies for infringement. — For a violation of
trade-mark property the courts of law, and of equity, are
both open to the injured party for redress. In the
former, he may have an action for damages ; in the
latter, a suit for an injunction, and a decree for pecuniary
satisfaction. The extraordinary restraining power by
injunction belongs to a court of equity ; an action pri-
marily for damages, to a court of law. By a familiar
rule, however, when a court of equity obtains jurisdiction
of a matter for any purpose, it will exercise its powers
for all purposes connected therewith, and grant full
relief to injured parties. Under this rule, in a suit pray-
ing for an injunction a court of equity obtains jurisdic-
tion of the case, and, having full control and power, will
decree damages when such redress is demanded by justice
and equity. The court has power also in such case to
compel the defendant to render a full and true account,
under oath, of aU sales by him of merchandise bearing
' Vacuum Oil Co. v. Buffalo Lubricating Oil Co., 36 Weekly Dig.,
570; New Haven Pat. Rolling Spring Co. v. Farren, 51 Conn., 324;
Eobertson v. Berry, 50 Md , 591.
» Popham V. Cole, 66 N. Y., 69; Partridge v. Menck, 2 Sandf. Ch.,
633; s. c. on appeal, 1 How. App. Cas., 548; CoUaday v. Baird, 4
Phila., 139; Woolam v. Eatclifl, 1 Hem. & M., 259.
104 EEMEDIES FOE INFRINGEMENT. [ § 60.
the pirated trade-mark, thus facilitating the administra-
tion of justice between the parties.'
' Upton Trade-marks, pp. 333, 834; Knott v. Morgan, 3 Keen, 313;
Millingtonv Fox, 3 Mylne & C, 838; Taylor v. Carpenter, 3 Sandf.,
Ch., 611, 613; Bell V Locke, 8 Paige, 375; Thompson v. "Winchester,
19 Pick., 314: Jurgenson v. Alexander, 34 How. Pr Re.,, 369; Stone-
breaker V Stonebreaker, 33 Md., 353; Shaver v. Shaver, 54 Iowa, 308;
B. c. 37 Am. Bep , 194- Singer Manuf. Co. v. EimbaU, 10 Scottish
L. K., 173.
§§ 61, 62.J FOKFEITUKE. 105
CHAPTEE VIII.
THE SECOND GENERAL MODE OP ACQUIRING TITLE TO
PERSONAL PROPERTY.— TRANSFER BY
ACT OF LAW.
Sbcstions 61. Special modes included in this division.
6a-65. Forfeiture.
66-67. Succession. '
68-69. Judgments.
70. Intestacy.
71-74. Insolvency.
75-77. Marriage.
§ 61. The special modes included Transfer of title
to personal property by act of law embraces : I. forfeit-
ure; II. Succession; III. Judgment; TV. Intestacy;
Y. Insolvency; and YI. Marriage.
I. Forfeiture.
§ 63. Definition and examples — Forfeiture is a loss
of title to his goods and chattels by the owner, as a pun-
ishment for crime, a penalty for the violation of law, or
a breach of contract, and a transfer thereof to the gov-
ernment, or other corporation,. or to a private person as
the case may be. '
As examples, may be mentioned forfeiture of aU the
goods and chattels of the offender for treason, and other
high crimes ; forfeiture of goods for evasion of the reve-
' 3 Kent Com., p. 385; 1 Black. Com. (Cooley's Ed.), p. 398; 3 Id.,
p. 408 et seq., 420, 431; 4 Id., pp. 3«3, 387j 1 Bouv. L. Diet., "for-
feiture;" And. L. Diet., "forfeiture."
106 FOEFEITUEE. [ § 63.
nue laws, or other statutes, State or national ; forfeiture
under the police power of the state for the illegal use of
property ; and forfeiture of the shares of a stockholder in
a corporation for a failure to pay assessments when due. '
§ 63. England, and United States. — Anciently in
England there were numerous statutory forfeitures for
crime ; but modern legislation has largely reduced the
number, and greatly softened the rigor of the ancient
law.
In the United States, forfeiture for crime is of rare
occurrence. Legislation, both national and State, is gen-
erally in harmony with the spirit of the Federal Consti-
tution, which provides that ' ' no attainder of treason
shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except
during the life of the person attainted. ' ' ' By act of Con-
gress it is provided that, ' ' no conviction or judgment
shall work corruption of blood, or any forfeiture of
estate. ' ' '
In most, if not all, of the States of the Union forfeiture
is regulated by organic or statutory law, or both. In
the absence of such regulation, forfeiture of property for
treason and felony still exists, it being part of the com-
mon law inherited from England.'
' Citations supra; and Chit. Cr. L,. pp. 730-735; 1 Bishop Cr. L., g§
944, 824, 835; Weeks v. SUver Islet, etc., Co., 55 N. Y. Super. Ct., (J.
& S.) 1, 16; Pendergast v. Turton, 1 Young & Coll., (N. R.) 98; Story
Eq Jur., § 1335; Cathcart v. Fire Department, etc., 26 N. Y., 529.
' U. S. Const., Art. 3, Sec. 3.
» U. S. Rev. St. (2 Ed.), § 5326.
* 3 Kent Com , p. 386.
§§ 64-66.] SUCCESSION. 107
§ 64. When title passes. — As a general rule, the
incurrence of the forfeiture does not ipso facto transfer
the forfeited property to the state, or the party to whom
it goes ; but a final judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction is requisite to pass the title.'
But the forfeiture, when decreed, relates back to the
time when it was incurred."
§ 65. Forfeiture odious. — ^In the administration of
statutory law, it is important to observe the distinction
between things odious and things favored, as affecting
the rule of construction applicable to each. Statutes
creating the former are subject to strict construction,
while the latter kind are construed liberally. Forfeitures
and penalties belong to the odious class, and fall under
the rule of strict construction. ° The rule of construction
applicable may be decisive of a case.
II. Succession.
§ 66. Definition, and kinds Defined in a general
way, succession is the transfer~of title or rights from one
person, or set of persons to another, either by act of the
parties or by operation of law, whereby the latter becomes
• 1 Bishop Cr. L., § 967; Fire Depaxtment of New York v. Kip, 10
"Wend., 366; Bang v. Earbury, Fort., 37; "Wells v. Martine, 3 Bay, 20;
Skinner v. Perot, 1 Ashm., 57.
' Bulkly V. Orms, Brayt. (Vt.), 124; Clark v. Protection Ina. Co., 1
Story, 109; The ifears, 8 Cranch, 417; United States v. Seventy-six
Thousand One Hundred and Twenty-Five Cigars, 18 Fed. Eep., 147.
' Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed.), § 417; Bishop Written Laws, § 193 et seq. ;
Taylor v. Patterson, 9 La. An., 351; Smith v. Spooner, 3 Pick., 329;
Sewal V. Jones, 9 Id., 412; SuUivan v. Park, 33 Me., 438; The State
V. Stevenson, 2 Baily, 334, 335; United States v. Burdett, 9 Pet., 68^.
108 SUCCESSION. [ § 67.
the successor of the former in respect of sucli title or
rights.
There are several kinds or modes of succession by
operation of law, without the act of the parties, classified
as follows : first, the succession to the government of the
personal and real estate of an intestate, when he has no
heirs, or next of kin to claim it ; second, what is some-
times called legal succession, which governs the distribu-
tion of decedent estates, and which is treated, post, under
the head of Intestacy;' and, third, common law succes-
sion, "the mode by which one set of persons, members
of a corporation aggregate, acquire the rights of another
set which preceded them. ' ' '
Testamentary succession is sometimes erroneously
classed with succession by act of law, instead of by act
of the parties, to which class it belongs, as the devisee
and legatee takes title direct from the testator. This
kind of succession is discussed post* under the head,
' ' Title by wUl or testament. ' '
The third kind only, that of common law succession,
will be considered in this connection.
§ 67. Common-law succession. — This mode of acquir-
ing title relates mainly to corporations aggregate, which
were treated supra.'' According to Blackstone, the acqui-
sition of property m chattels hj succession "is, in strict-
'§70.
' Bouv. Law Diet., "succession;" 3 Kent Com., p. 387; 2 Blacks.
Com., pp. 430, 431 ; 1 Id., pp. 468, 469, 475 ; And. L. Diet., " succes-
sion."
• § 90, etc.
<§80.
§ 67. J SUCCESSION. 109'
ness of law, only applicable to corporations aggr^ate,^^
' ' in which one set of men may, by succeeding another
set, acquire a property in all the goods, movables,
and other chattels of the corporation."' But, as we
have seen, the term ' ' succession ' ' may have a broader
scope.
Chief Justice Marshall, in the celebrated Dartmouth
College case," speaking of the properties of corporations
aggregate, says : ' ' They enable a corporation to manage
its own affairs, and to hold property without the per-
plexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless necessity of
perpetual conveyances for the purpose of transmitting it
from hand to hand. It is chiefly for the purpose of
clothing bodies of men in succession, with these qualities
and capacities, that corporations were invented, and are
in use. By these means a perpetual succession of indi-
viduals is capable of acting for the promotion of the par-
ticular object, like one immortal being. ' '
In sole corporations a distinction is made in respect of
succession. When a sole corporation is the representa-
tive of a number of persons, it has the same capacity as
a corporation aggregate to take chattels in succession ;
but in case of sole corporation which represent only one
person, chattel interests do not pass in succession.'
Sole corporations proper are rare in the United States,
but there are quasi corporations possessing some of the
« 3 Black. Com., pp. 430, 431.
' Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat., 636. And see 1
Black. Com., pp. 469, 470, 471, 475; 2 Kent Com., p. 373; 1 Potter
Corp., §§3, 3,4.
» 2 Black. Com., pp. 431, 433; Kent Com., pp. 373, 374; 1 Potter
Corp., §18.^
110 JUDGMENT, [ §§ 68, 69.
properties, and subserving some of the purposes, of sole
corporations.'
III. Judgment.
§ 68. Beflnition. — A judgment is the conclusion of
law, upon the facts of a case judicially ascertained, pro-
nounced by a competent tribunal having jurisdiction in
the premises, in a matter regularly before it for adjudi-
catipn.
Judgments in actions ex coni/ractu are classed with con-
tracts of record by some text- writers and courts;" but
other authorities dissent, holding that no judgment has
the essential elements of a contract;' and the weight of
authority seems to be on this side of the question.
But, whatever may be the rule respecting judgments
in actions ex contractu, there is no good reason for class-
ing judgments ex delicto with contracts;* and it is with
these mainly, that we are concerned in this connection.
§ 69. Judgments which transfer title. — In actions
of trover, or of de hpnis asportatis, if the plaintiff
recovers judgment, and obtains satisfaction, the title to
' 1 Potter Corp., § 18, and cases cited; Boone Corp., § 6, and.cases
cited.
' 1 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), p. 8; Mete. Cent., p. 4; Anson Cont., pp. 8,
37, 38; Wald's Pollock Cont., pp. 145, 146; Morse v. Tappan, 8 Gray,
411; Gebhardv. Garnier, 13 Bush., 821; Stuart v. Landers, 16 Cal,,
373.
3 Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed.), § 141; O'Brien v. Young, 95 N. Y., 438;
Louisiana v. Mayor, 109 U S., 285; Rae v. Hulbert, 17 lU.. 572, 580;
Burnes V. Simpson, 9 Kan., 658; Larrabee v. Baldwin, 85 Cal., 155,
168- McConn v. The N. Y. C. and H. R. R. Co., 50 N. Y., 176; Biddle-
son V. Whytel, 8 Burrows, 1545-1548.
' Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed.), § 141.
§ 69. J JUDGMENT. Ill
the property in question is transferred to the defendant ;
the damages recovered being regarded as the price of the
chattel so transferred by operation of law. '
It is a mooted question whether the recovery of judg-
ment alone, without satisfaction, will transfer the title
to the property in question to the defendant. There
are cases, English and American, holding the affirmative
of the question on, at least, plausible grounds;" on the
other hand, there are numerous cases holding the nega-
tive, the judgment being regarded as a security merely,
leaving the title to the property in the plaintiff untU pay-
ment of the price represented by the judgment.'
It seems but reasonable and just that the owner should
not lose title to his chattel against his wiU, by the tor-
tious act of another, without receiving compensation for
it ; and equally reasonable and just that the wrong-doer
should not profit by his tort without first paying the
judgment price.
There are some other cases, generally assigned to this
mode of acquiring title to personal property, of which
notice should be taken. They differ somewhat from the
' 3 Kent Com., pp. 387, 388; 2 Black. Com,, pp. 437, 438; Bishop
Non-Cont. Law, § 399.
' Brown v. Wootton, Cro. Jac, 73; Adams v. Broughton, Strange,
1078; Rogers v. Moore, 1 Rice, 60; White v. Philbriok, 5 Greenl., 147;
Carlile v. Burley, 3 Id., 250; Floyd v.^Browne, 1 Rawle, 135; Marsh
V. Pier, 4 Id., 273; Hunt v. Bates, 7 R. I., 217.
' Curtis V. G-roat, 6 Johns., 168; Osterhout v. Roberts, 8 Cow., 43;
Sanderson v. Caldwell, 3 Aiken, 195; Elliott v. Porter, 5 Dana, 399;
Campbell v. Phelps, 1 Pick., 62; Sharp v. Gray, 5 B. Monr., 4; Hep-
bum V. SeweU, 5 Har. and J,, 311 ; Spivey v. Morris, 18 Ala., 354;
Drake v. Mitchell, 3 East, 258; Cooper v. Shepherd, 3 C. B., 266; Goff
V. Craven, 34 Hun, 150; Thurst v. West, 31 N. Y., 215.
112 INTESTACY. [ § 70,
cases now considered, and do not in all respects strictly
fall within the same doctrine, yet for all practical pur-
poses they may properly be placed in the same category.
1. Oases of penalties, given by statute, which may be
recovered by any party who will sue for the same ; and
qui tam, actions, in which an informer may sue for the
penalty in his own name, as weU on behalf of himself as
the state. In this class of cases no particular person has
any right in, or claim upon, the penal sum before action
brought ; and he who first brings the action and obtains
judgment, acquires title to it. '
2. Damages awarded to a man as a compensation for
an injury sustained ; as for a battery, for false imprison-
ment, for slander or trespass, and, generally, for injuries
resulting from torts, for which the damages recoverable
are uncertain. In this class of cases, the damages, when
fixed by judgment, become the property of the plaintiff,
transferred to him from the defendant by operation of
law.'
IV. Intestacy.
§ 70. Definition, history, and incidents Intestacy
is the state or condition of a . person dying without leav-
ing a valid will.' Applied to the subject in hand, it
signifies the state of one dying and leaving testable per-
sonal property undisposed of by will.
The intestate's title to his property dies with him ; and
where the title rests intermediate his death and the
' 2 Black. Com., p. 437; Bishop Written Laws, § 250 d.
'2 Black. Com., p. 488.
• Bouv. L. Diet., " intestacy;" 3 Black.. Com., p. 494.
§ 70. J INTESTAOY. 113
appointment of an administrator, is a question which has
caused some confusion of thought. It does not vest in
his heirs at law for they take only decedent's real estate ;
it does not pass directly to the next of kin, for they take
no legal title to his personal property ; neither their title
nor that of any other person can accrue in other mode
than through the medium of an administrator. '
A brief historical sketch of the law of intestacy will
relieve the question from difficulty. "We have seen ' that
occupancy is the first known method of acquiring title to
personal property; that the right of property in external
things in the aggregate belongs to the human race col-
lectively ; that he who first appropriated a thing to his
own use acquired a property therein, and an exclusive
right thereto, which property and right continued so long
as the exclusive use or occupancy continued, and no
longer. That when possession was abandoned the right
was lost, and any other person might appropriate the
thing to his own use, with the like right and limitation ;
and so on in succession indefinitely. The abandonment
of the thing by the possessor relegated it to the common
stock belonging to mankind as a whole. In other words,
the abandoned thing became a part of the unappropriated
body of property known as iona vacantia • and the death
of the possessor was regarded as an abandonment having
this effect.
. Eef erring especially to England, in the progress "of
' Ferrie v. The Public Administrator, 3 Bradf. Surr, Eep., 249, 262;
Beattie V. Abercrombie, 18 Ala. 9; Sneed v. Hooper, Cooke (Tenn.),
200; Beecher v. Buckingham, 18 Coim., 110; State v. Moore, 18 Mo.
App., 406; Palmer v. Palmer, 55 Mich., 293.
» Supra, § 33.
8
114: mXESTACT. [§,'''0-
events lona vacantia became the property of the king.
He seized upon such goods as parens ^atricB and general
trustee of the kingdom.
Ori^nally the king exercised this prerogative by his
own ministers of justice ; but later it was granted as a
franchise to many of his lords of manors, and others who
thereunder acquired a right to grant administration to
their intestate tenants and suitors in their own courts
baron, and other courts.
Subsequently the crown granted this right to the
popish clergy. The ordinary — i. e. one who had ordi-
nary or immediate jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical,
an ecclesiastical judge — might seize and keep the goods
of an intestate, keep them without wasting, give, alien,
or sell them at wiU, and dispose of the proceeds m
pios usus.
But the clerical garb was not proof against tempta-
tion, and after a while the clergy came to the pious con-
clusion that they were the rightful beneficiaries, and
appropriated to themselves most of the estates thus left
them in trust, without even paying the debts of the
deceased.
Finally, Parliament interposed and placed administra-
tion in the hands of the ' ' nearest and most lawful friends
of the deceased ; ' ' and by a subsequent act, it was granted
either to the widow, or next of kin, or both." But the
ordinary still had jurisdiction in the administration of
estates, and granted letters, the administrators being
regarded as his olficers.
• Statutes, 31 Edw. Ill, c. 11; and 21 Hen VIII, c. 5.
§ 70. j IKTESTAOT. 115
This is the origin, and history in brief, of administra-,
tion in England. It will be seen that the administration
of the property of an intestate is based upon the doc-
trine that his death was an abandonment of title, and
that his personalty thereupon became tona vacantia,
passing to the sovereign as the pa/rens patrice, or general
trustee of the realm. The legal title vests in the crown ;
the equitable title in decedent's creditors and next of kin.
The same doctrine prevails in the American States,
substituting ' ' government ' ' for ' ' king " or " crown, ' '
and, as a necessary sequence, intermediate the death of
intestate and the issuance of letters of administration,
the legal title to his personal property vests in the gov-
ernment in trust.'
There are cases, however, holding that after the death
of the intestate his personal property may be considered
in abeyance till administration granted, and is then
vested in the administrator by relation to the time of
decedent's death." But to this view there are several
objections. First, it is historically illogical; secondly,
it is in conflict with the axiomatic principle that in the
matter of title to property the law abhors a vacuum, that
the title must be somewhere ; and, thirdly, it leaves the
personal effects of intestate without lawful custody and
> 2 Black. Com., pp. 3, 11, 359, 401, 494-498; Pom. Munic. L., § 787;
AspinwaU V. The King's Proctor, Curt. Ecc, 346; Hensloe's Case, 9
Rep., 37, 38; Public Administrator v. Hughes, 1 Bradf. Surr Eep.,
135, 138, 139; Ferrie v. The Public Administrator, 3 Id., 349, 363, 363.
» Jewett V. Smith, 13 Mass., 309; Clapp v. Stoughton, 10 Pick., 463;
Lawrence v. "Wright, 33 Id., 138 ; Brackett v. Hoitt, 30 N. H., 357;
McVaughters v. Elder, 3 Brev. (S. C), 307; Miller v. Reigne, 3 Hill
<8. C), 593.
116 ' INTESTACY. [ § 70,
protection until the grant of administration, which ia
often delayed for a considerable length of time. True,
on the appointment of an administrator, the legal title
passes to him by operation of law, and relates back to
the death of the intestate for the purposes of securing
the estate, and protecting persons dealing with parties^
entitled to administration, who are afterwards appointed
and assume such administration. The administrator may
maintain an action for an unredressed tortious injury to,
or conversion of, the property of the estate prior to his
appointment;' yet the want of present adequate protec-
tion intermediate his appointment and the death of the
intestate, might result in irreparable injury to the estate.
While the legal title to the intestate's personal prop-
erty is in the administrator as trustee, so that for the
purposes of administration he may sell the same and give ,
a good title to the purchaser, the next of kin have a
vested interest in the surplus of the estate, after the pay-
ment of the debts.'
The appoiatment, powers, and duties of an adminis-
trator, and the distribution of intestate's personal prop-
erty, are generally regulated by statute ; and the rules of
the common law are more or less modified in most, if not
all, of the American States.
• Citations supra, and Dayt. Surr., p. S34; Valentine v. Jackson, 9
Wend., 302; Babcook v. Booth, 2 Hill, 181; Vroom v. Van Home, 10
Paige, 549.
' Ferrie v. The Public Administrator, 3 Bradf. Surr. Rept., 249,
262; Pom. Munic. L., § 798.
§§ 71, 72. J msoLVENOT. 117
V. InsoVoency.
§ 71. Meaning of the terms insolvency, and bank-
ruptcy. — This mode of acquiring title to personal prop-
erty embraces bankruptcy, which, is included in the
generic term insolvency.
"Writers do not agree in respect to the derivation of
the word bankruptcy. The weight of authority favors
the view that it is derived from the words haneus, which
means the table or counter of a tradesman, and rv^ptus,
broken, signifying the broken bench or counter, and
denoting one whose shop or place is broken or gone.
This view is rendered probable from the custom said to
have once existed among the bankers of Italy, who car-
ried on the business in public places, seated on forms,
with benches on which to count their cash ; and when
one became insolvent, his bench was broken, either as a
mark of reproach, or to make room for another. '
The word insolvent means not solvent. In law it
expresses the state of a person who is unable, for any
cause, to pay his debts. Or, what is perhaps a better
definition, the state of one who is unable to pay his
debts as they fall due in the usual course of trade or
business."
§ 72. Distinction between bankrupt, and insolvent,
laws. — Originally there were several points of difference
•3 Black. Com., p. 473; Bouv. L. Diet., "bankruptcy;" 3 Pars.
Cont. (7 Ed.), p. 433, n. (b); 1 Beaw. Lex Merc, 371.
' Bouv. L. Diet., " insolvency;" Ferry v. The Bank of Central New-
York, 15 How. Pr. Rep., 445, 451; Thompson v. Thompson, 4 Cush.,
134; Brower V. Harbeck, 9 N. Y., 589; Lee v. Kilburn, 3 Gray, 594;
Hazleton v. Allen, 3 Allen, 114
118 mSOLTENOT. C,§'i^3.
between bankrupt and insolvent laws ; and such distinc-
tions still exist where they are not modified or obliter-
ated by statute.
1. Bankrupt laws apply only to traders or merchants;
while insolvent laws apply to all indiscriminately.
2. Bankrupt laws discharge absolutely the obligation
of the honest debtor ; while insolvent laws discharge only
the person of the debtor, leaving his future acquisitions
still liable for his debts.
3. Formerly, while all persons owing debts could take
the benefit of an insolvent law, none who were not
traders, or quasi traders, could be forced into bankruptcy
against their will, at the suit of others.
But these distinctions are of very little practical
importance at present, in this country, having been quite
generally, to a large extent, obliterated by the legislation
both of the Federal Government and the States. '
§ 73. General purposes, and eflfect, of insolvent
laws. — We have seen that one of the limitations to the
absolute ownership of personal property, is its liability
for the satisfaction of aU his just debts, except in so far
as it may be exempt by statute."
The effect of insolvency is, in contemplation of law,
to convert the insolvent's estate into a common fund for
the payment of his debts ; and the proceedings in bank-
' 3 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), pp. 430, 431; R. S. of U. S. (3 Ed.), § 5014
Blanchard v. Eussell, 13 Mass., 1; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat., 213
Sturges V. Crowninshield, 4 Id , 119; Sackett v. Andross, 5 Hill, 337
Adams v. Storey, 1 Paine C. C, 79.
» Supra § 5; and see 3 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), pp. 438, 429.
§^ 74.] INSOLVENCY. 119
ruptcy, or insolvency, constitute the legal machinery by
which the estate is transferred to his creditors.'
Under these proceedings the insolvent's property is
transferred by operation of law to an assignee or trustee,
who is clothed with authority to administer the same for
the benefit of creditors. He seUs the property, or so
much thereof as may be necessary for the purpose, and,
after paying expenses of administration, distributes the
residue among the creditors pro rata, if the fund be
" insuflBoient to pay them in full. If there be a surplus
after paying expenses and all the creditors in full, it is
paid over to the insolvent or his legal representatives.
The operation of thefee laws embraces two classes of
debtors : 1. Dishonest debtors, who do not wish or
rutend to pay their debts, in whose case the law inter-
poses and does for them, and for the benefit of their
creditors, what they ought to do voluntarily, but will
not. 2. Honest debtors, who wish to pay their debts,
but are unable to do so in fuU ; in this class of cases the
law comes to the aid of both debtor and creditor, takes
the property of the former for the benefit of the latter,
and relieves the honest but unfortunate debtor from
further obligation and embarrassment.'
/
§ 74, United States bankrupt, and insolvent, laws
Under the Federal Constitution Congress is authorized to
establish ' ' uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies
throughout the United States."' In virtue of this
authority, Congress has enacted three general laws on
■ Sturges V. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat., 195.
• 3 Pars. Cont., p. 431; 2 Black. Com., pp. 473, 474.
» U. 8. Const., Art. I, § 8.
120 msoLVENOT. [ § 74.
the subject, all of which have been repealed, viz : 1. The
act of April 4, 1800, repealed December 19, 1803; 2.
The act of August 19, 1841, repealed March 3, 1843;
and 3. The act of March 2, 1867, repealed June 7, 1878 ;
aggregating less than eighteen years during the century
of national life under the Federal Constitution.
But the omission has been largely supplied by State
insolvent laws. It is well settled that the States have
the reserved power to enact insolvent laws, notwithstand-
ing the authority vested in Congress by the United
States Constitution ; and the laws passed on the subject,
by Congress and the State legislatures, have, generally,
each contained the distinctive features of both bankrupt
and insolvent laws.'
To the power of the States, however, there are certain
limitations.
1. The State bankrupt or insolvent law must not
impair the obligation of a contract.
2. It must not conflict with any existing act of Con-
gress on the subject.
3. The State cannot pass a law that shall act upon the
rights of citizens 'of other States, who do not voluntarily
become parties to proceedings under it affecting such
rights."
As to when statutes are in conflict it is held, that two
• 2 Kent Com., p. 391; 3 Pars. Cont., pp. 435-446; Story's Com. on
Const. U. 8., Vol. Ill, p. 11.
' 2 Kent Com., p. 391, et seq.; Sturges v. Crovminshield, 4 Wheat.,
122; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Id., 197, 227, 235, 238; Houston v. Moore, 5
Id., 34, 49, 52, 54; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Id., 213; 3 Pars. Cont. (7
Ed.), pp. 481-446.
§ 76.J MAEEIAGE. 121
having the same general object, and acting upon the
same persons and the same cases, by different modes and
in different jurisdictions, must be in conflict with each
other. Though the modes by which the remedy is
administered may vary, yet, where the bankrupt act and
the State insolvent law have substantially the same scope
and object, and act upon the same persons and cases, the
State law is suspended.'
The effect of a conflict is to suspend, not to abrogate,
the State insolvent law. If the act of Congress which
suspends a State law be repealed, the latter is therebj'^
revived and rendered operative.'
VI. Marriage.
§ 75. Transfer of chattels by mai*riage. — At com-
mon law marriage vests the husband with title to the
chattels of the wife, and with the same degree of prop-
erty, and the same powers, as the wife when sole had in
and over them. '
This effect of marriage is the logical outcome of the
doctrine that husband and wife constitute a unit, of
which the husband is the embodiment. By the common
law the individuality, and being, even, of the wife is in
' Martin v. Berry, 2 Bankr. Reg., 629; s. c, 37 Cal., 208; Van Nos-
trand V. Carr, 30 Md., 128; Shears v. SoUinger, 10 Abb. Pr. Rep. (N.
S ). 287; 3 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), p. 446 and notes.
« Sturges V. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat., 123; 3 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), p.
446.
» 3 Black. Com., p. 433; 3 Kent Com., pp. 130, 134; Reeve Dom.
Rel. (4 Ed.), p. 1, et seq.; Browne Dom. Rel., p. 2'i ; Bish. Mar. and
Div., §§ 14, 15.
122 MAEBIAGE. [ § 76.
a degree suspended during coverture, or legally merged
in that of her husband. '
The personal property of the wife in possession at the
time of her marriage, in her own right, vests immediately
and absolutely in her husband. He can dispose of it at
will, and on his death it passes to his representatives."
§ 76. As to the wife's choses in: action The hus-
band has a qualified property in the choses in action
belonging to his wife at the time of their marriage ; but
to obtain an absolute title, and render them available to
hind, he must reduce them to possession by some unequiv-
ocal act signifying his claim of ownership. He may sue
for and recover, or release and assign, them; and when
recovered or assigned the avails, whether in specie or
money, become absolutely his own property.'
But, in case the husband dies without having reduced
the chose m action to possession, it will belong to the
wife in her own right without administering on his
estate.*
' ' 3 Black. Com., p. 433; 3 Kent Com., p. 139.
» 2 Kent Com , p. 143 ; Hyde v. Stone, 9 Cow., 230 ; Harper v. Mc-
Whorter, 18 Ala , 239; Mahoney v. Bland, 14 Ind., 176; Burgess v.
Heape, 1 Hill (S. C), Ch. 397; Vaden v. Vaden, 1 Head (Tenn ), 444;
Carleton v. Lovejoy, 54 Me., 445.
' 2 Kent Com., p. 135 ; Reeve Dom. Eel. (4 Ed.), p. 2, and notes;
Winslow V. Crocker, 17 Me., 29; Tryon v. Sutton, 13 Cal., 490; Fourth
Ecclesiastical Soc. v. Mather, 15 Conn., 583; Young v. Ward., 21 111.,
333; Evans V. Secrest, 3 Ind., 545; Lowery v. Craig, 30 Miss., 19;
. Tritt's Adm'rs v. Colwell's Adm'rs, 31 Penn., 232.
* 2 Kent Com., p. 185; Eeeve Dom. Eel. (4 Ed.), p. 4, and n. 1; Legg
V. Legg, 8 Mass., 99; Howes v. Bigelow, 13 Id., 384; Griswold v.
Penniman, 2 Conn., 564; Searing v. Searing, 9 Paige, 283.
§ 77.J > MAEEIAGB. 123
On the other hand, in case of the wife's death before
the husband has reduced her choses to possession, he, sur-
viving her, is not vested with the absolute title in virtue
of his marital rights ; but he may recover the same to
his own use through letters of administration, to which
the husband is generally entitled. '
§ 77. No unjust discrimination against the wife. —
To relieve the common law from the unmerited reproach
cast upon it by ardent reformers, on account of its alleged
cruel discrimination against the wife, it should be noticed
that the marital relation lays burdens upon the husband
from which the wife is relieved. He becomes liable for
the payment of her debts contracted before marriage;
and this, even though she brings him no dower." He is
obliged to maintain his wife, and provide her with neces-
saries suitable to her situation and his condition in life ;
and is liable for debts that she may contract for such
things during cohabitation. '
He is also liable for her torts committed both before
and after marriage.*
Not merely does the law relieve the wife of burdens
incident to humanity, and lay them upon her husband,
but it carefully and tenderly provides protection for her
rights, and security against injustice and oppression by
• 2 Kent Com., p. 135; Reeve Dom. Eel. (4 Ed.), p. 18; Garforth v.
Bradley, 2 Ves., 675; Richards v. Richards, 3 Barn, and Adol., 447 ;
Barnes v. Underwood, 47 N. Y., 351,
' 2 Kent Com., pp. 143, 144; Browne Dom. Rel., pp. 18, 19 ; Reeve
Dom. Rel. (4 Ed), p. 95, et seq.
' 2 Kent Com., pp. 146-149; Browne Dom. Rel., pp. 20-25.
* 2 Kent Com., pp. 149, 150 ; Reeve Dom. Rel. (4 Ed.), p. 100 ;
Browne Dom. Rel., p. 26.
124 MAEEIAGE. [ § 77.
her husband. If, for example, the husband seeks the
aid of a court of equity to get possession of his wife's
property to which he may be entitled in law, he wiU be
required first to make a reasonable provision out of it for
the maintenance of herself and her children.
And chancery wiU sometimes restrain the husband
from recovering her property at law, until a suitable pro-
vision is made for her support. '
It only remains to notice, that by statute in many
States of the Union the marital unit is broken into frac-
tions, the wife being empowered to hold and deal with
her property independent of her husband, with equal
freedom, and to the same extent, as Sufeme sole.
For the law on this subject as thus changed, reference
must be had to the statutes of the several States.
> 2 Kent Com., p. 189, et seq.; Reeve Dom. (4 Ed.), p. 12 and notes
§ 78. J GIFTS INTEE VIVOS. 125
CHAPTEE IX.
THE THIRD GENERAL MODE OF ACQUIRING TITLE TO
PERSONAL PROPERTY — TRANSFER BY ACT
OF THE PARTIES.
Sections 78-84. Gifts inter vivos.
85-89. Gifts causa mortis.
90-95. Title by wiU or testament.
96-114. Sales. v
115. Indorsement.
116. Assignment.
117. Bailment.
This general mode includes : I. Gifts inter vivos/ II.
QHts causa' mortis/ III. Title by vrill or testament ; lY.
Sales; V. Indorsements; YI. Assignments; YII. Bail-
ments.
These will now be severally discussed ia their order.
I. Gifts Inter Yimos.
§ 78. Definition, and subjects, of these gifts. — A
gift vnter vivos is a voluntary, actual, and immediate
transfer of a thing by one living person to, or fdr,
another living person. The student should observe that
the term ' ' voluntary ' ' here, and generally in the law,
means without consideration.'
' Bouv. L. Diet., "gift;" 3 Kent Com., p. 438, et seq.; 1 Pars.
Cont., (7 Ed.), pp. 334-336; 3 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 68, et seq.; Williams
Pers. Prop., p. 36; Bish. Cont. (Enl. Ed.), §§83, 83; Faxon v. Durant,
9 Met., 339; Penfield v. Thayer, 3 E. D. Smith, 305,
126 GIFTS INTEE VIVOS. [ § T9.
f
Personal property of every description, corporeal or
incorporeal, may be transferred by gift. '
§ 79. Delivery essential To complete a transfer by
gift, the donor must have a present intention of renoun-
cing aU right to, and dominion over, the thing given,
without power of revocation ; and he must deliver posses-
sion to, or for the donee." This rule is satisfied by an
absolute delivery to a third person divesting the posses-
sion and title of the donor, and intended to confer the
title upon the donee.' And it has been held, even, that
the donor may, by an apt declaration to that effect, con-
vert himself into a trustee for the donee.* Delivery may
be constructive or symbolical, as well as actual and
manual. '
A debt due from the donee to the donor may be the
subject of a gift from the latter to the former ; and the
gift may be consummated by a delivery to the donee by
the donor of any evidence of the debt existing ; and if
there be none,. then by a delivery of a receipt in full.*
' Citations last supra; and see Bogan v. Finlay, 19 La. An., 94.
' Citations supra under § 78; Sewal v. Glidden, 1 Ala., 53; Ander-
son V. Baker, 1 Ga., 595; People v. Johnson, 14 HI., 343; Dole v. Lin-
coln, 31 Me., 433; Reed v. Spaulding, 43 N. H., 114; Carpenter v.
Dodge, 30 Vt., 595; Irish v. Nutting, 47 Barb., 870; Brink v. Gould, 7
Lans., 435; Jackson v. Twenty-third Street Railway Co., 88 N. Y.,
530, 536; Wallace v. BurdeU, 97 Id., 131.
' Hurlbut V. Hurlbut, 49 Hun, 189; Young v. Young, 80 N. Y., 433,
430; Hutchings v. Miner, 46 N. Y., 456; Sch. Pers. Prop.', pp. 80, 83.
* Taylor v Kelley, 5 Hun, 115; Gray v. Barton, 55 N. Y., 68, 73.
' Citations supra under § 78; Allen v. Cowan, 83 N. Y., 503; Marsh
V. FuUer, 18 N. H., 360; Cooper v. Burr, 45 Barb., 9; Hackney v.
Vrooman, 63~Id., 650; Camp's Appeal, 36 Conn., 88; Gardner v. Mer-
ritt, 33 Md„ 78.
' Gray v. Barton, 55 N. Y., 68; 3 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 90,
§ 80. J - GIFTS INTER VIVOS. 127
If the subject of the gift be a chose in action^ there
must be an assignment or what is equivalent to it ; and
the transfer must be actually executed. '
Equitable assignments are recognized and enforced
where there is not a perfect legal transfer under the rules
of the common law, and yet where the donor has so far
completed his gift that the donee is entitled, in justice,
to invoke the aid of a court of equity to perfect his title. "
§ 80. "Validity of gifts. — Stolen goods cannot be the
subject of a vahd gift as against the true owner. The
thief takes no transmissible interest ; and the general rule
of law that one cannot transfer a better title than he
possesses applies with full force to gifts.' But the
equities of subsequent hona fide purchasers will be
respected.*
Gifts of chattels prejudicial to the rights of creditors
^re invalid. It is a well established rule' of law, that a
man holds his property subject to its liability for his
•debts ; that he must be just before he is generous; and
he is not at liberty to alien his property by gift, or
otherwise, in fraud of his creditors.'
' 2 Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 72-74; 3 Kent Com., p. 439.
' 2 Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 75-79; Williams Pers. Prop., p. 86; Grover
V. Grover, 24 Pick., 361; Wing v. Merchant, 57 Me., 383 ; AUerton v.
Lacey, 10 Bosw., 362; Ellison v. Ellison, 6 Ves., 656; Ex parte
Dubost, 18 Id., 140, 150; Vandenberg v. Palmer, 4 Kay & John., 304.
« 2 Sch. Pers. Prop , 100; HoflEman v. Carow, 33 Wend., 385.
* 2 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 100; Anderson v. Green, 7 J. J. Marsh , 448;
Black V. Thornton, 31 Ga.. 641; Green v. Kornegay, 4 Jones (N. C),
X,., 66; Moultrie v. Jennings, 2 McNull (S. C), 508.
' Supra, § 5; 2 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 101, et seq.: 3 Kent Com., pp.
440-443 ; 1 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed ), p. 235 ; Thomson v. Dougherty, 13
Serg. and R., 448; Hanson v. Buckner, 4 Dana, 251; Sexton v.
128 GIFTS INTEE VIVOS. [ §§ 81, 82.
§ 81. Gifts on condition, with reservation, or a
trust. — Gifts are sometimes made with a condition or
reservation imposed by the donor; in which cases the
transfer is sometimes upheld as a qualified gift, and some-
times fails altogether, according to circumstances.'
If there be a lawful condition precedent imposed, the
gift win take effect when, and only when, the condition
is complied with.'
Trusts are sometimes attached to gifts at the time of
delivery, which are sustained by the courts."
§ 82. Gifts between parent and child. — Ordinarily
the law does not presume a gift ; but, in the absence of
qualifying or contrary evidence, a delivery of personal
property by a parent to his child, on or after marriage,
will be regarded as a gift or advancement. And, gen-
erally, less evidence is requisite to characterize the trans-
fer of personal property by parents to children as a gift,
than in cases of non-kinship.*
Wheaton, 8 Wheat., 229; Gannard v. Elslava, 30 Ala., 733; Clark v.
Depew, 35 Penn. St., 509; Trimble v. Ratcliflfe, 9 B. Mon., 511.
' Citations last supra; The Lucy Ann, 33 Law Eep., 545; Duclaud
V. Rousseau, 3 La. AH., 168; Wolf v. Estes, 7 Ind., 448; Hope v.
Hutchins, 9 Gill and J. (Md.), 77; Duncan v. Self, 1 Murph. OS. C),
446; Pitts v, Mangum, 3 Bailey, 588; Withers v. Weaver, 10 Penn.
St., 891.
" 3 Sch. Pars. Prop., p. 116; Berry v. Berry, 81 Iowa, 415; Martrick
V. Linfleld, 31 Pick., 385.
» 3 Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 115-117; Marston v. Marston, 1 Post., 491.
* HaUowell v. Skinner, 4 Ired. (N. C.) L., 165; White v. Palmer, 1
MoNuU (S. C), Ch. 115; Whitfield, v. Whitfield, 40 Miss., 353; Syler
V. Eckhart, 1 Binn. fPa.), 378; Young v. Glendeming, 6 Watts (Pa.),
509; Van Deusenv. Rowley, 8 N. Y., 358; Caldwell v. Pickens, 3»
Ala., 514.
§§ 83, 84.J GIFTS INTER VIVOS. 129
But a gift bj'' the child to the parent, while the former
is still under parental authority, is presumed to be made
under parental influence, and therefore invalid. The
burden of proof rests upon the parent to rebut the pre-
sumption, by showing that the child had independent
advice, or was otherwise in a position to exercise an
independent judgment as to the gift.'
§ 83. Gifts between husband anid wife. — At common
law there cannot be a gift from the husband to the wife
during coverture, they being one person only, in dbntem-
plation of law. But equity has always upheld such gifts,
whether made with, or without, the intervention of a
trustee, when the claims of creditors were not affected.'
§ 8i. Kevocation of gifts When a gift is fully
executed it is irrevocable as to the parties and their legal
representatives, except for fraud, force, undue influence,
or mental incapacity on the part of the donor. Gifts are
no more revocable in their nature than transfers of prop-
erty in other modes. Possession being given with intent
, to part with the property in the thing, the right of
ownership and dominion for all purposes goes with it.
But in behalf of creditors and bona fide purchasers,
executed gifts may be set aside.'
' Story Eq. Jur., § 309; I*om.,Bq. Jur., § 963; Browne Dom. Eel.,
p. 78; Burgen v. Udal, 31 Barb., 9; Taylor v. Taylor, 8 How., 199;
Archer v. Hudson, 7 Beav., 551.
» 3 Kent Com., p. 168; Shuttleworth v. Winter, 55 N. Y., 634; Ryn-
dera V. Crane, 3 Daly, 339; Scott v. Simes, 10 Bosw., 314; Woodson
V. McClelland, 4 Mo., 495; Neufville v. Thomson, 3 Edw., Ch. 93;
Mack V. Mack, 3 Hun, 333.
' 3 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 114; 2 Kent Com., p. 440; 1 Pars. Coni.
(7 Ed.), p. 336; Sanborn v. Goodhue, 38 N. H.,48; Thomson v. Dough-
9
130 GIFTS OATJSA MOETIS. [ § 85.
II. Oifts Causa Mortis.
§ 85. Definition. — Various definitions of gifts causa
•mortis are found in the books, differing in some unim-
portant respects, but none is more accurate and compre-
hensive than that of Judge Eedfield. He says : ' ' Thej
may be defined as gifts of personal estate, made in pros-
pect of death at no very remote period, and which are
dependent upon the condition of death occurring sub-
stantially as expected by the donor, and that the same be
not revoked before death." '
The original source of our law upon this species of gift
is found in the civil law." It occupies a middle ground
between gifts inter vimos and legacies, partaking in some
respects of the nature of both, while differing from each
in other particulars.' It has the substantial qualities of
a legacy in being ambalatory and revocable during the
life of the donor, in not vesting until donor's death, and
in being subject to the debts of the deceased ; but differs
from a legacy in that no action of a court, or assent of the
executor, is essential to confirm and effectuate it.* It is
erty, 13 Serg. & R., 448; Hanson v. Buckner, 4 Dana, 251; Clark v.
Depew, 35 Penn. St., 509; Saxton v. Wheaton, 8 Wheat., 339.
1 3 Redf. Wills (3 Ed.), p. 323, § 43; and see 3 Sch. Pers. Prop., p.
133; 3 Black. Com., p. 514; 3 Kent Com., p. 444; Bouv. L. Diet.,
" dona mortis cauisa ;" Michener v. Dale, 23 Penn. St., 59; Nicholas
V. Adams, 3 Whart., 33; And. L. Diet., "Donatio mortis causa."
"3 Kent Com., p. 444.
' 3 Redf. WiUs (3 Ed.), p. 333, § 43, sub. 3; 3 Sch. Pers. Prop., p.
126; Bunn v. Markham, 7 Taunt., 334, 331; Merchant v. Merchant,
SBradf. Surr. Rep., 432; Ward v. Turner, 2 Ves. Sen.. 431, 439, 440;
Lawson v. Lawson, 1 P. Wms. , 441.
* Citations last supra.
§ 86.] GIFTS CAUSA MOETIS. 131
like a gift inter vivos in respect to the competency of the
donor, the subjects of the gift, what constitutes the gift, ,
delivery, and invalidity as against the rights of creditors ;
and unlike in* respect of its revocability during the life of
the donor.'
§ 86. Essentials to this gift. — To constitute a gift
oa-Msa mor■<^s three elements are essential : 1. It must be
made with a view to donor's death from present illness,
or from external and apprehended peril ; 2. The donor
must die of that ailment or peril ; and 3. There must be
a delivery.
Under the head of gifts inter vivos were discussed the
competency of the donor, the subjects of the gift, deliv-
ery, and the effect upon creditors of the donor;'' and as
the same doctrines apply to and goverm gifts causa mortis
in the particulars named, it is only necessary here to
consider the rules specially applicable to this species, and
not comrdon to both.
1. The gift must be made with a view to the donor's
death from present iUness, or from external and appre-
hended peril.
This requisite has been the subject of much discussion,
and some contrariety of judicial opinion. But the gen-
eral doctrine established by the best considered cases is,
that the donor must be in expectation of death, then
imminent, either from illness or external peril.' The
' Citations last mpra ; and see 1 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), p. 337.
» Supra, §§ 78-84.
'Gourley v. Linsenbigler, 51 Penn. St., 345; Irish v. Nutting, 47
Barb., 370; Nicholas v. Adams, 3 Whart., 17; Smith v. Dorsey, 38
Ind., 451; Craig v. Kittredge, 46 N. H., 57.
132 GIFTS CAUSA MOBTIS. [ § 87.
case of Grymes v. Hone ' has been cited as holding that
old age alone will satisfy the rule under consideration.
But a careful examination of the facts and opinion will
show, that in addition to old age, f wiling healthy from
which the donor never recovered, was an important
factor in the case.
2. The donor must die of the ailment, or peril, in view
of which the gift was made. If he be ill and recover, or
in peril and escape, the gift does not take effect. On
this point the authorities are in harmony.'
§ 87. Title of donee, delivery, and effect The
donee derives title directly from the donor in his life-
time, and not from his executors, or by virtue of admin-
istration. Nor has the executor or administrator of the
donor any claim upon the subject of the gift, for the
purpose of administration and the shares of distributees.'
To complete this kind of gift, as in case of gifts inter
vivos, delivery is essential. But there are some points of
difference between the two species in this regard, which
should not be overlooked. In the case of a gift inter
vivos there must be such a delivery by the donor, either
actual or symbolical, to or for the donee, as will divest
the former of all title to, and dominion over, the subject
of the gift, and irrevocably vest the same in the donee.
In the case of gifts causa mortis a distinction is made
M9N. T.,17.
» 3 Redf. Wills (2 Ed.), p. 334, § 43, sub. 5; 3 Kent Com., p. 444; 2
Sch. Pers. Prop., p, 151; Drury v. Smith, 1 P. Wms., 404 ; Blount v.
Burrow, 1 Ves. Jun;, 546; Grymes v. Hone, 49 N. Y., 17, 20.
'Gannet v. Tucker, 18 Ala., 37; House v. Grant, 4 Lans., 296;
Webster v. DeWitt, 36 N. Y., 340.
§ 88.] GIFTS CATTSA MOETIS. 133
between delivery to an agent of the donor, and a trustee
of the donee. The possession of the agent would be the
possession of his principal, the donor, whose death would
terminate the agent's authority, so that he could not
thereafter make a valid delivery to the donee. But
possession of the trustee would be the possession of his
principal, the donee; so that delivery to the trustee is,
in effect, delivery to the donee, thus completing the gift,
subject to revocation ; and the trustee has power to make
actual delivery to the donee after the donor's death, in
case of non-revocation.
The fact that the donor of a gift causa mortis has,
during his Kfe, the power of revocation, logically implies
that such a delivery has taken place as would sustain a gift
mter vivos, otherwise there would be nothing to revoke. '
§ 88. Revocation. — "We have seen that gifts int&r vivos,
when complete, are irrevocable. " But a gift causa mortis,
until fully confirmed by the donor's death as contem-
plated, is revocable in three instances : 1. By the donor's
recovery from the particular illness, or escape from the
imminent peril, in view of which the gift was made;
2. By the death of the donee prior to that of the donor;
and, 3. By the act of the donor revoking the gift.'
< 3 Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 152-167; Ward v. Turner, 2 Ves. Sen., 431;
Irish V. Nutting, 47 Barb., 370; Hatch v. Atkinson, 56 Me., 324; Ses-
sions V. Mosely, 4 Cush., 87; Farquharsonv. Cave, 2Coll., 356; Moore
V. Darton, 4 DeG. & Sm , 517.
» Supra, § 84.
* 2 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 176, et seq.; 2 Kent Com., p. 444; Weston v.
Hight, 17 Me., 287; Merchant v. Merchant, 2 Bradf. Surr. Rep., 482;
Bunn V. Markham, 7 Taunt., 330; Wiggle v. Wiggle, 6 Watts, 533;
Parker v. Marston, 27 Me., 196.
134 TITLE BY WILL OE TESTAMENT. [ §§ 89, 90.
But these gifts are not revoked by the donor's subse-
quent will ; £!,nd for the reason that on his death the title
of the donee becomes absolute, and therefore irrevocable
by the wUl, which is inoperative during the donor's life-
time, the only period during which he "could exercise the
power of rSvocation.'
§ 89. Not favored in the law. — In closing this topic
it should be noticed, that gifts causa mortis are not
favored in the law. They are regarded as a fruitful
source of litigation, and lack the formalities and safe-
guards surrounding wills, designed to prevent fraud and
injustice.'
III. Title l>y Will or Testam&nt.
§ 90. Why assigned to this division. — Title by will
or testament is classed with transfers by act of the party,
for the reason that it is derived imiiiediately from the
testator who, by virtue of his will, executed with due
formality, gives direction to his property after his death.
The title comes to his legatees, not in virtue of a common
law rule, or by force of a statutory provision, as to dis-
tributees in case of intestacy, but by act of the testator
in making and publishing his last will and testament.
True, the beneficiaries do not take possession of, and
acquire dominion over, the property given them by the
will without the action of an intervening party or court,
' Merchant V. Merchant, supra; Nicholas v. Adams, 2Whart., 17;
Jones V. Selby, Free. Ch., 300.
« 1 Debnotte v. Taylor, 1 Eedf. Surr. Rep., 417; Duffleld v. Elwees,
1 Bligh (N. S.), 533; Walsh v. Sexton, 55 Barb., 251, 356; TiUinghast
V. Wheaton, 8 R. I., 536; Hatch v. Atkinson, 56 Me., 824; Brown v.
Brown, 18 Conn., 410.
§ 9 O.J TITLE BY WILL OE TESTAMENT. ' 135
as the donee takes from the donor in case of a gift
inter vivos, or the vendee from the vendor in case of a
sale; but the title of legatees comes, nevertheless, in
virtue and by force of the act of the testator. '
There are several kinds of legacies : general, specific,
demonstrative, cumulative, vested, contingent, absolute,
conditional, and residuary; but their consideration is
omitted here, as unnecessary for the purpose of explain-
ing the method of acquiring title now under discussion,
and not within the scope of this treatise. The subject of
legacies is examined ^os^.°
The student wiU observe, that when the will operates
upon personal property it is often called a testament, and
when upon real estate, a devise ; but the more general
and popular denomination of the instrument is, last will
and testament. Devise is the appropriate term for the
testamentary disposition of real estate, legacy, for per-
sonal property; bequest is applied indiscriminately to
devises and legacies, embracing both real and personal
property. But as bequest has no corresponding term to
designate the taker, like devisee and legatee, it is not
always a convenient term for use.' These terms are
often used inaccurately and indiscriminately in testa-
mentary instruments, sometimes causing perplexity in the
construction ; but as the leading rule of construction and
adjudication is, to ascertain and enforce the intention of
the testator, the terms employed will not be held to
• 2 Black. Com., pp. 513, 513; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 728, et seq.; 2
Eedf. WUls, p. 215, g 16; 1 Rop. Leg., 842.
» § 130.
» 1 Redf. Wills, pp. 5, 6; 1 Williams Ex'rs, 6; 1 Jarm. Wills (Bng.
Ed. 1861), 702, n. k ; Dupper v. Mayo, 1 Saund., 376 f, n. 4.
136 TITLE BY WILL OE TESTAMENT. [ §§ 91, 92.
strict definitions, and may be used indiscriminately with-
out necessarily thwarting the will of the testator.*
§ 91. Last will and testament defined. — The books
contain various 'definitions of a last will and testament,
differing in phraseology and unimportant particulars, but
all substantially embodied in the brief definition of Judge
Redfield — "the disposition of one's property, to take
effect after death. " '
It is well said in Turner v. Scott,' that "the essence of
the definition of a will is that it is a disposition of prop-
erty to take effect after death."
§ 92. Testamentary capacity. — All persons, not under
natural or legal disability, are competent to execute a
valid will. The exceptional persons, and grounds of dis-
ability, wiU now be briefly noticed.
1. Aliens. — While by the common law aliens are
incompetent to devise real estate, alien friends — subjects
of governments at peace with us — may dispose of per-
sonal property by will. But ahen enemies — subjects of
governments at war with us — are incapable of executing
a valid will of personal property, even, unless by special
License from the government to reside and transact busi-
' 1 Redf. Wills, pp. 419, et seq., 433, et seq. ; 4 Kent Com., p. 535, et
seq. ; O'Hara Wills, p. 29, § 5, et seq. ; Wootton v. Redd, 13 Gratt. (Va.),
196; Lepage v. McNamara, 5 Iowa, 124; Byers v. Byers, 6 Dana
(Ky ), 312; Pickering v. Langdon, 32 Me., 413; Creswell v. Lawton, 7
Gill & J. (vid.), 237; Penroyer v. Shelden, 4 Blatohf , 316.
« 1 Redf. Wills, p. 4. g 2, sub. 1; 2 Black Com., p. 500; 4 Kent Com.,
p. 501; Dayt. Surr., p. 43; Swinb., pt. 1, § 3.
» 51 Penn. St., 136; and see Frederick's Appeal, 52 Id., 338.
§ 92. j TITLE BY WILL OR TESTAMENT. 137
ness within our territorial limits during the continuance
of hostilities.'
2. Infants. — Under a certain age an infant is inca-
pable of disposing of his property, real or personal, by
last will and testament. The limitation of age is regu-
lated by statute, both in England and in the American
States, and is not uniform ; but quite generally the age
of testamentary capacity is earlier in females than in
males, and for the assumed reason that the former mature
earlier than the latter. In England until a coraparativelj''
recent period, in conformity to the Eoman civil law,
males at fourteen, and females at twelve," might dispose
of their personal estate by wiU. But the present English
statute on the subject provides, that ' ' no will made by
any person under the age of twenty-one years shall be
valid.'"
In New York, males at eighteen, and females at six-
teen, may bequeath their personal estate by wiU. *
Each State has its own statutory provisions on the
subject, and to these the student and practitioner wUl
necessarily refer.
8. Coveri/ure. — Under the Eoman civil law, the married
woman had the same testamentary capacity as a feme
sole ; but in England _ coverture created a disability.
To this rule, however, there were several exceptions. In
many of the American States women were, until a com-
> 1 Eedf. Wills, p. 8, § 3, sub. 3; 3 Kent Com., pp. 63, 63; 1 Pars.
Cont. (7 Ed.), pp. 397, 398; Williams Pers. Prop,, p. 46.
« 3 Black. Com., p 497.
» 1 Vic, c. 36.
* 4 N. Y. R. S. (8 Ed.), p 3547, § 31.
138 TITLE BY WILL OR TESTAMENT. [ § 92.
paratively recent period, and in some of the States still
are, subject to this disability. But it is fast disappearing
before the tide of modern legislation setting in that
direction. '
4. Mental incapacity. — This exception covers a wide
field, embracing idiocy, imbecility, insanity in its various
species and multiplex nomenclature, and, generally, all
persons included in the comprehensive designation non
compos mentis.
It is generally held, that where the testator is free
from the presence and disturbing influence of adverse
parties, a lower degree of mental capacity will suffice to
make a valid will, than is requisite for the transaction of
other business where two minds, stimulated by opposite
interests, contend for advantage.'
But the testator ' ' must, at the time of executing the
will, have had sufficient capacity to comprehend per-
fectly the condition of his property, and his relations
towards the persons who are or might be the objects of
his bounty, and the scope and bearing of the provisions
of his will.'" •
5. Undue vnjlaence^ and fraud. — It is not only essen-
' 1 Eedf. Wills, p. 21, § 3; Reeve Dom.Rel. (4 Ed.), p. 187, n. J;
Browne Dom. Eel., p. 53.
' Converse v. Converse, 31 Vt , 168; Stevens v. Vancleve, 4 Wasli.
C. C, 263; Thompson v. Hyner, 65 Penn., 368; S. P. Stubbs v. Hous-
ton, 33 Ala., 555; Howard v. Coke, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.), 655; Kinne v.
Kinne, 9 Conn., 103; and see Delafleld v. Parish, 25 N. Y., 9.
* Delafield v. Parish, last supra, p. 29; Van Guysling v. Van Kuren,
35 N. Y., 70; Tyler v. Gardiner, Id., 559; Hall v. HaU, 18 Ga., 40;
Sutton V. Sutton, 5 Harr. (Del.), 459; Hathorn v. King, 8 Mass., 371;
Domick v. Reichenbaok, 10 Serg. & R., 84; Home v. Home, 9 Ired.
(N. C.) L., 99.
§ 93.J TITLE BY WILL OE TESTAMENT. 139
tial that the testator should have had the requisite mental
capacity at the time of executing his will, but he must
have been free to use the same. In other words, the
instrument produced as his last will and testament, must
have been his will, and not that of another. The exer-
cise of undue influence, or practice of fraud, may so
dominate or blind the testator as to induce him to affix
his executive hand to an instrument that does not express
his assenting will. Such an instrument, it is scarcely
necessary to state, is invalid.
To constitute undue influence having the effect stated,
it must be such as is -exercised by coercion, imposition, or
fraud, and not that which arises from gratitude, affection,
or esteem.'
§ 93. Written, and unwritten wills. — At common
law, a will of personal property was good without writ-
ing;" but now, both in England and the United States,
nuncupative wills are not valid, as a general rule at least,
except in the two cases of sailors and soldiers, while in
actual service and danger.'
A will may be written on any material, and in any
' Kinne v. Johnson, 60 Barb., 69; Van Hanswyck v. Wiese, 44 Id.,
494; Clarke v. Davies, 1 Eedf. Surr. Rep., 349; Gardiner v. Gardiner,
34 N. Y., 155; Hartman v. Strickler, 83 Va., 335; Waddington v.
Buzby, 43 N. J. Eq., 154; Trost v. Dingier, 118 Pa. St., 359; Storey's
Will, 30111, App,, 183.
» 4 Kent Com., p. 517; Swinb. WDls, 6; Prince v. Hazleton, 20
Johns., 502; Ex parte Thompson, 4 Bradf. Surr. Rep., 154.
' Citations last supra; and Gwin's Estate, 1 Tuck. Surr., 44; Hub-
bard v. Hubbard, 8 N. Y., 196; Black. Com., pp. 500, 501; 4 Kent
Com., p. 517.
140 EEVOCATION OF WILL. [ § 94.
language ; in pencil instead of ink ; and the whole or a
portion may be in print, an engraving, or lithograph. '
§ 94. EeTOcation. — A wiU, being ambulatory during
the testator's life,' may be revoked by him at his
pleasure ; and it is also revocable by implication or infer-
■ence of law.*
1. The testator may revoke by a subsequent duly
•executed will, or, pro tanto, by a codicil.* But the rules
in regard to testamentary capacity, and formalities of
execution, apply to a subsequent wiU, and codicil, and
must be observed or the instrument wiU have no effect
oipon a former will. '
2. The testator may revoke his will by burning, tear-
ing, canceling, obliterating, or otherwise destroying the
instrument itself, with the intent of revoking the same. '
But such a revocation requires testamentary capacity,
the same as required to execute a wiU. There must be
' 1 Redf. "Wills, pp. 165, 166; In re Dyer, 1 Hagg., 319; Schneider v.
JSTorris, 2 M. & S., 286; Temple v. Mead, 4 Vt., 536; Henshaw v.
Foster, 9 Pick., 313; Kell v. Charmer, 33 Beav., 195.
» Supra § 85.
»4KentCom.,p. 521.
* 1 Redf. Wills, pp. 344-365; Christmas v. Whingates, 3 Swab. &
Tr., 81; White v. Casten, 1 Jones, L. N. C, 197; Nelson v. McGiffert,
-3 Barb., Ch. 158; Conovor v. Hoffman, 15 Afeb. Pr. R., 100; Van Wert
V. Benedict, 1 Bradf . Surr. , 114.
' Citations last supra; and Boylan v. Meeker, 28 N. J. L., 274;
WikofE's Appeal, 15 Pa. St , 281; Nelson v. Pub. Adm'r, 2 Bradf.
Surr., 210; Delafleld v. Parish, 35 N. Y., 9; Smith v. McChesney, 15
N. J., Ch. 359.
• 1 Redf. Wills, pp. 345-847; Burtenshaw v. Gilbert, Cowp., 51;
Smith V. Clark, 34 Barb., 140; Smith v. Dolby, 4 Harr. (Del.), 350;
rSumner v. Sumner, 7 Harr. & J. (Md.), 388.
§ 95.] WHEN WILL TAKES EFFECT. 141
an intelligent animus revoeandi, and freedom of volitiom
and action. '
3. Marriage and the birth of issue. The rule gener-
ally obtains that the marriage of a feme sole works a
revocation of her will previously executed. The marriage
of a man does not, of itself alone, have the Same effect ;
but marriage and the birth of issue does so operate,
unless where the father prior to making his will, or
cotemporaneously therewith, makes express provision, by
a separate instrument, for such future issue."
4. Eevocation by the birth of children subsequently to
the execution of a will is quite generally regulated by
statute in this country. The statutory provisions of the
different States on the subject, are not in all particulars
alike ; but the prevailing rule is, that the birth of a child
revokes a will previously made, so far, at least, as to let
in the child to a share in the property, unless some pro-
vision is made for it, either in the will or otherwise.'
§ 95. When the will takes effect. — A will of per-
sonal property does not, as a rule, take effect, nor are
there any rights acquired under it, until the death of the
' Idley V. Bowen, 11 "Wend., 335; Matter of Forman, 54 Barb., 374;
'smith V. Waite, 4 Id., 38; Laughton v. Atkins, 1 Pick., 435; 1 Eedf.
WiUs, pp. 303, et seq.
« 1 Eedf. WiUs, pp. 393-303; Hodsden v. Lloyd, 3 Br. Cr. Cas., 534;
Cotter V. Layer, 2 P. Wms., 633, 634; Kenebel v. Scrafton, 3 East,
530; Bush v. Wilkins, 4 Johns., Ch. 506; Warner v. Beach, 4 Gray,
163; Morton V. Onion, 45 Vt., 145.
» 4 Kent Com., p. 536; Walker v. Hall, 34 Pa St, 483; Ash v. Ash,
9 Ohio St., 383; Fallow v. Chidester, 46 la., 588; Deupree v. Deupree,
45 (ja., 415; Bloomer v. Bloomer, 3 Bradf. Surr., 339.
142 SALES. [ § 96.
testator. In legal phrase, a will speaks from the death
of the testator. '
The subject of wills is regulated by statute in the sev-
eral States of the Union, presenting considerable diver-
sity of provisions, so that general rules, only, could here
be given ; and only a few of the multitude of cases on
the subject have been cited.
lY. Sales.
§ 96. Sale defined. — A bargain and sale of goods,
termed in brief " a sale," is accurately defined to be "a
transfer of the absolute or general property in a thing
for a price in money. ' ' ' Chancellor Kent thus defines a
sale : "A sale is a contract for the transfer of property
from one person to another, for a valuable consideration. ' ' *
This definition differs from the above by embracing cases
of barter and exchange, where the consideration is other
than money, and which do not, therefore, constitute a
sale according to the strict common law definition, which
requires a consideration in money, paid or promised.*
' Jarm. Wills (5 Am. Ed.), 600; Banks v. Thornton, 11 Hare, 176,
Delasherois v. Delasherois, 11 H. L. Cas., 62; Wagstaff v. Wagstaff,
Law E. Eq., 229; Deegan v. Livingston, 15 Mo., 230; Leigh v. Savidge,
14 N. J. Eq., 124; Gourley v. Thompson, 2 Sneed (Tenn.), 387; Can-
fleld V. Bostwick, 21 Conn., 550; George v. Green, 13 N. H., 521;
Van Vechten v. Van Veohten, 8 Paige, 104.
' Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 1; 2 Sch. Pers. Prop., 186; 2 Black.
Com , p. 446; gtory Sales, § 1; Martin v. Adams, 104 Mass., 262;
Wittowski V. Wasson, 71 N. C, 451; Smith v. Weaver, 90 HI.. 392;
Creveling v. Wood, 95 Pa. St., 152, 158.
2 2 Kent Com., p. 468.
* Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 1, n. 1; 1 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), p. 681, n.
<g); Mitchell v. Gile, 12 N. H., 390; Vail v. Strong, 10 Vt., 457.
§ 96. J SALES. 143
But it lias been held that if property be taken at a fixed
money price, the transfer amounts to a sale, whether the
price be paid in cash or in goods.' The distinction
between a sale and barter or exchange is frequently
ignored in the books; and, indeed, it is not of much
practical importance, as the principal elements of the
contract, and the rights and remedies of the parties, are
substantially the same in both cases.'
Mr. Tiedeman, in his recent excellent treatise on Sales,
formulates for his treatment of the subject the following
definition : "In the sense in which the term is to be
employed in this book, a sale may be defined to be a
contract or agreement for the transfer of the absolute
property in personalty from one person to another for a
price in money.'" This definition differs from the com-
mon one by emb^'acing in effect executory sales. The
•distinction between executed, and executory, contracts of
sale must be observed in the study of this subject. In
the former, there is a present transfer of the absolute
property in the subject of the sale; in the latter, an
agreement of sale and future transfer ; and in such case,
the subsequent transfer of the thing converts an
executory^ into an executed^ contract. It will be observed
that, while one cannot sell, he may make a valid agree-
ment toseU, a thing to which he has no present title.*
' Picard v. McCormick. 11 Mich., 68; S. P. Keiler v. Tutt, 31 Mo.,
301.
2 Dowling V. McKenney, 124 Mass., 480; Redfleld v. Tegg, 38 N, Y.,
■212 ; Commonwealth v. Clark, 14 Gray, 367 ; Howard v, Harris, 8
Allen, 297; Mason t. Lothrop, 7 Gray, 355.
» Tiede. Sales, § 1.
* Tiede. Sales, § 1; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888). pp. 1, 8; Am. n. pp. 3, 4;
Joyce V. Murphy, 8 N. Y., 391; Blaisdell v. Souther, 6 Gray, 153;
144: SALES. [ §§ 97-99.
§ 97. Elements of a Talid sale A concurrence of
the following elements is essential to a valid sale, viz:
1. Parties competent to contract; 2. Mutual assent; 3.
A thing, the absolute property in which is the subject of
the transfer ; and 4. A price iji money paid or promised.
These elements will now be treated briefly in the order
named.
§ 98. Parties competent to contract. — For a full
discussion of the subject of competency, reference must
be had to works embracing the subject of contracts in
general; and contracts of sale. It must suffice for pres-
ent purposes to state, that to constitute a valid sale, the
parties must have both natural and legal capacity to con-
tract. ' ' By natural capacity is meant a competent
measure of mental power. Legal capacity includes
natural, and also the permission of the law to exercise
it. ' " There may be a want of either, or both, which
creates incompetency to contract. For example, infants,
persons non compos mentis, drunkards, married women,
outlaws and persons attainted, aliens, spendthrifts, and
seamen may be whoUy or partially incompetent.
§ 99. Mutual assent. — To constitute a valid contract
of sale, there must be not only competent parties, but
the mutual assent of these parties to all the terms and
conditions of the same. The miuds of the parties must
Elliott V. Stoddard, 98 Mass., 145; Dittmar v. Norman, 118 Mass,^
319; Lester v. East, 49Iiid., 588; Powder Co. v. Burkhart, 97 U. S.,
110.
' Met Cont. (Heard's Ed.), p. 41.
§ 99.] SALES. 145
meet, and assent to the same thing, in the same sense, and
at the same instant of time.'
If an o;ffer be made by one party in writing, orally,
personally, by agent, by mail or telegraph, and received
by the other party, its unconditional acceptance by the
latter, communicated to the first party, completes a con-
tract. ' If there be a conditional acceptance, or counter
proposition, communicated to the first party, his assent
thereto, duly communicated to the second party, is
requisite to complete a contract. ° It is not essential to
the completion of the contract that the assent should be
express. It may be implied from language, or conduct,
such as appropriating the benefits of the proposed con-
tract, or otherwise treating it as complete, or even
inferred from silence.* Where the ofPer is made by mail
or telegraph, the contract is complete when the letter of
acceptance is mailed, or the* telegram announcing accept-
ance is deposited with the telegraph company for trans-
' Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed.) § 313; 1 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), p. 475; Mete.
Cont. (Heard's Ed.), p. 16; Tiede. Sales, § 33; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888),
p. 43; Am. n. pp. 70-75; Dickinson v. Dodds, 2 Ch. D., 463, 472; Cook
V Oxley, 3 T. E., 653; Jordan v. Morton, 4 M. & W., 155; Allis v.
Read, 45 N. Y., 143, 149; Utley v. Donaldson, 94 U. S., 39, 47.
» Tiede. Sales, §§ 38, 39; Bishop Cont. (Enl Ed ), §§ 331-334.
« Tiede Sales, § 37; 1 Pars. Cont., p. 477; Moss v. Sweet, 16 Q. B.,
493; Derrick v. Monette, 73 Ala., 75; Baker v. Holt, 56 Wis., 100;
Ashcroft V. Butterworth, 136 Mass., 511; Stagg v. Compton, 81 Ind.,
171.
* Tiede. Sales, § 38; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 43; Am. n. pp. 70-75;
Joyce V. Swaee, 17 C B. (N S ), 84, 101; Gowing v Knowles, 118
Mass. 333; Street v. Chapman, 29 Ind., 143; Payne ^ Cave, 3 T. R.,
148; Hoadley v. McLaine, 10 Bing., 483, 487; Brogden v. Metrop.
Railway Co., 3 App. Cas , 666; Taylor v. Jones, L. B. C. P. D., 87,
90; Crook v. Cowan, 64 N. 0., 743.
10
146 SALES. [ § 99.
mission, althougli sucli letter or telegram should never
reach the offerer.*
Communication by telephone and phonograph being
among the latest realizations of science, the rules govern-
ing the use of these instrumentalities in commercial
transactions are not yet established. But, as the human
voice is the immediate vehicle of the message conveyed,
such communications vrill probably be regarded as per-
sonal.'
If, by reason of a mistake of fact in regard to the sub-
ject matter, or terms of the contract, the minds of the
parties do not meet, there will be no mutual assent to the
same contract, and, therefore, no sale or contract binding
upon either party. And the same rule applies where one
of the parties mistakes the other for a third person ; in
which case he makes no binding contract.'
An offer may be withdrawn at any time before accept-
ance, unless there be an agreement for a valuable consid-
eration to hold it open a stipulated time for acceptance.
In case of such an agreement, should the party making
the offer withdraw the same before the expiration of the
stipulated time, he would become Liable to the other
' Mactier v. Frith, 6 Wend., 103; Adams v. Lindsell, 1 B. & Aid.,
681; Tayloe v. Insurance Co., 9 How., 390; Vasser v. Camp, 11 N. Y.,
441; Abbott v. Shepard, 48 N. H., 14; Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y„ 363;
Stookham v. Stockham, 33 Md., 196; Bryant v. Booze, 55 Ga , 438;
Trevor V. Wood, 36 N. Y., 307; Durkee v. Central Railway Co., 39
Vt., 127; Thorne v. Barwick, 16 Up. Can. C. P., 869; MarshaU v.
Jamison, 42 Up. Can. Q. B., 130; Perry v. Mt. Hope Iron Co., 15 R.
I., 66.
' See Tiede. Sales, § 39.
»Tiede. Sales, § 35; Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed.), S 635, etseq.; Benj.
Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 57, et scq
§ 100.] SUBJECT OF SALE. 147
party for all damage resulting from his breacli of con-
tract to hold open.'
§ 100. The subject of the sale. — One of the elements
of a valid sale, is a thing, the absolute or general prop-
erty in which is the subject of the transfer."
The distinctions between absolute and qualified prbp-
erty will be recalled.' A thing may have, in a certain
sense, two owners, one of whom has the general, and the
other the special, property in it. For example, when
goods are delivered in pawn or pledge, the general prop-
erty remains in the pawnor, and a special property vests
in the pawnee. Manifestly, a transfer of the special prop-
erty is not a sale of the thing.
At law, there cannot be a sale of a thing that has no
existence, actual or potential. A nominal sale of prop-
erty which is not in existence at the time of making, or
the time of executing, the contract, conveys no title.'
But, while there can be no executed sale of a thing not
yet in existence, or the title to which has not been
acquired by the vendor, there may be a valid executory
agreement for the sale of such a thing.' And, if the
' Tiede. Sales, §§ 40, 41; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 46, et seg.; Bishop
Cont. (Enl. Ed.), g§ 78. 321.
» Supra, §§ 96, 97.
' Supra, § 4.
* Tiede. Sales, g 50; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 76; Am. n. pp. 80, 81j
Strickland v. Turner, 7 Ex., 208; Hastie v. Conturier, 9 Ex., 102, and
5 H. L. C, 673; Lunn v. Thornton, 1 C. B , 379; Young v. Bruces, 5
Litt., 324; Harris v. Nicholas, 5 Munf., 483; Carpenter v. Stevens, 12
Wend , 589.
» Tiede. Sales, § 51; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), pp. 78, 79; Am. n. pp.
80-82; Gittings v. Nelson, 86 111., 591; Chesley v. Joselyn, 7 Gray, 489;
Head v. Gtoodwin, 37 Me., 182; Cressy v. Sabre, 17 Hun, 120; Gard-
ner V. McEwen, 19 N. Y., 123; Stanton v. Small, 3 Sandf., 230.
148 PEICE IN MONEY, ETC. [§101.
vendor afterwards acquires title, and the vendee obtains
lawful possession before the rights of third parties
have intervened, the executory contract is converted into
an executed contract of sale, and title vests in the ven-
dee.'
There may, however, be a valid sale of a tbing in
potential existence, before maturity of actual existence,
as, for example, a growing crop, the wool from a flock
of sheep, or the unborn young of animals."
"While at law the rules are as now stated, in equity, if
the subject of the sale can be identified by the description
in the contract, the sale is valid even though the thing be
not even in potential existence. As soon as the thing
comes into existence, or into the possession of the vendee,
the title passes to him.'
§ 101. A price In money, paid or promised. — We
have seen that to distinguish a sale from barter or ex-
change, there must be a price in money, paid or prom-
ised.* The price may be fixed by the agreement of the
parties, or established by implication of law. "When
' See citations last supra.
» Tiede. Sales, § 53; Beaj. Sales (Ed. 1888), Am. n. p. 82; Hall v.
Hall, 48 Conn., 250; MoCarty v. Blevins, 5 Yerg., 195; Fonville v.
Casey, 1 Murphy (N. C), 387; Sawyer v. Gerrish, 70~Me., 254; Gran-
tham V. Hawley, Hob., 133; Robinson v. McDonnel, 5 M. & S., 338 ;
Rawlings v. Hunt, 90 N. C, 370; Conderman v. Smith, 41 Barb , 404.
» Tiede. Sales, § 53; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), Am. n. p. 81; Holroyd v.
Marshall, 10 H. L. C, 191; Reeve v. Whitmore, 4 De G. J. & S., Ij
MitoheU v. Winslow, 2 Story, 630; Pennock v. Coe, 23 How., 117;
McCaffrey v. Woodin, 65 N. Y., 459; Hunter v. Bosworth, 43 Wis.,
583; Phillips V. Winslow, 18 B. Monr., 431; Smithurst v. Edmimds,
14 N. J. Eq., 408.
« Supra, g 96.
§ 102. J STATUTE OF FEAtTDS. 14:9
property is sold without fixing the price by stipulation,
the law raises a promise by implication on the part of the
purchaser, that he will pay for the same what it is rea-
sonably worth ; and this has the same binding force as an
express 'agreement of the parties. '
§ 102. The Statute of Frauds. — To the common law
requisites of a valid contract of sale, the Statute of
Frauds adds other conditions to.certain specified contracts.
The English Statute of Frauds was enacted in 1676,
under the title, — " An Act for Prevention of Frauds and
Perjuries ;" ' and has been adopted, in substance, in most,
if not all, of the American States. The fourth and
seventeenth sections of this statute affect contracts of
sale; the former applying to "lands, tenements, and
hereditaments, or any interest in or concerning them,"
and the latter to the sale of personal property,, or, in the
language of the English statute, "any goods, wares, or
merchandises, for the price of ten pounds sterling or up-
wards."
It is the seventeenth section that we now have to con-
sider. It provides that contracts of this class ' ' shall not
be allowed to be good ' ' except upon one of three condi-
tions, namely: 1. The buyer shall accept part of the
goods so sold, and actually receive the same. 2. Or give
something in earnest to bind the bargain, or in part pay-
ment. 3. Or that some note or memorandum in writing
' Tiede. Sales, § 47; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), pp. 83 85; Am. n. pp. 85,
86; Hoadly v. McLaine, 10 Bing., 483; Taft v. Travis, 136 Mass., 95;
James v. Muir, 33 Mich., 334; McEwen v. Morey, 60 111., 32; Fenton
V. Braden, 3 Cranch C, C, 550; Hountz v. Kirkpatrick, 73 Pa. St.,
376.
' 39 Car. 3, o. 3.
150 STATUTE OF FRAUDS. [§102,
of the said bargain be made and signed by the parties to
be charged by such contract or their agents thereunto
lawfully authorized.
These contracts and conditions will now be considered :
1. WhM contracts embraced. — It may now be regarded
as settled that this section of the statute embraces execu-
tory, as well as executed, contracts of sale. This ques-
tion gave rise to consideraljle discussion, and some con-
flict of opinion, in the English courts, until it was put at
rest by a statute known as "Lord Tenderden's Act," '
which provides in effect that the seventeenth section of
the Statute of Frauds shall apply to executory contracts
of sale. The courts in this country have quite uniformly
held that executory contracts for the future delivery of
goods are embraced in this section.'
2. Cont/racts not embraced. — It may be regarded as
established that this section of the statute does not apply
to contracts for work and labor, and materials found.
But the dividing line between such a contract and a con-
tract of sale where the vendor's labor and materials enter
into and become a constituent element in the subject of
the sale, is not always easily drawn. Considerable dis-
cussion has arisen, and some contrariety of judicial
opinion been developed, in an effort to formulate a rule
for determining on which side of the line a given case
' Geo. rV, c. 14, sec. 7.
« Tiede. Sales, § 56; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), pp. 88, 89; Am. n. pp. 99,
100; Newman v. Morris, 4 Har. & McH., 321; Carman v. Smick, 15
N. J. L., 252; Edwards v. Grand Trunk R. R. Co., 48 Me., 379; Ben-
nett V, Hull, 10 Johns., 864; Ide v. Stanton, 15 Vt., 685; Atwater v.
Hough, 29 Conn., 513; Waterman v. Meigs, 4 Cush., 497; Cason v.
Cheely, 6 Ga., 554; Jackson v. Covert, 5 Wend., 139.
§ 102. J STATUTE OF FEATJDS. 161
belongs ; but no universally satisfactory test has yet been
furnished. There was a lack of unanimity in the English
authorities down to the case of Zee v. Griffin;^ and in
this country the cases still fail to harmonize. Some fol-
low the case of Lee v. Oriffm, which holds, in effect, that
a contract for the future delivery of a thing which is
properly the subject of a sale, is a contract of sale, and
not a contract for work and labor and materials furnished,
notwithstanding the skill of the vendor is to be exercised,
and materials are furnished by him, in carrying out the
contract." Other cases hold, that if the vendor's skill is
bargained for, it is a contract for work and labor, not a
contract of sale, and, therefore, not within the Statute
of Frauds.' The doctrine of another line of cases,
briefly stated, is, that a contract for the special manu-
facture of an article which the vendor does not keep in
stock, is a contract for work and labor and materials
furnished, and not a sale within the Statute of Frauds. '
But where the article ordered is " what the vendor ordi-
• 30 L. J. Q. B., 352; 1 B. & S., 373.
' Hardell v. MoClure, 1 Chandl., 371; Brown v, Sanborn, 31 Minn.,
403; Prescott v. Locke, 51 N. H., 94.
' Downs V. Ross, 33 Wend , 370; Passaic Mfg. Co. v. Hoffman, 3
Daly, 495; Miller v. Fitzgibbons, 9 Daly, 505; Joy v. Schloss, 13 Id.,
538; Seymour v. Davis, 3 Sandf., 339; Smith v. N. Y. C. E. R. Co., 4
Keyes, 180; Bates v. Coster, 1 Hun, 400; Kellogg v. Witherhead, 4
Hun, 373; Cook v. Millard, 65 N. Y., 353; Rentch t. Long, 37 Md.,
188
"■ Mixer v. Howarth, 31 Pick., 305; Goddard v. Binney, 115 Mass.,
450; Phippsv. McFarlane, 3 Minn., 109; Meincke v. Folk, 55 Wis.,
437; Finney v. Apgar, 31 N. J. L., 371; Hight v. Ripley, 19 Me., 137;
Allen V. Jarvis, 30 Conn , 38; Bennett v. Nye, 4 Greene (la.), 410;
Suberv. Pulling, 1 8. C, 373; Gadsen v. Lance, 1 McMul. Eq., 87;
O'Neill V. N. Y., etc., Co., 3 Nev., 141.
162 STATUTE OF FRAUDS. , [§102
narily sells, and it has not been specially prepared for the
vendee," it is a contract of sale, falling within the
Statute of Frauds.'
It is to be hoped that eventually the courts will see
" eye to eye " on this point, and furnish a uniform rule
for guidance.
3. What are '■'■goods, ■wares ^ and merchandise.'''' —
The English courts restrict this clause of the statute to
corporeal movable property;" but the American authori-
ties allow it a broader scope, including incorporeal prop-
erty, such as shares of stock, ohoses in action, and the
like.'
"When the subject of the sale is part of the soil by
annexation, which becomes personalty on severance, care
is requisite. in determining whether the case falls within
the seventeenth section of the statute relating to sales of
personal property, or the fourth, which applies to real
estate. All contracts within the latter section must be
evidenced by a writing ; while in the formei- a writing is
• May V. Ward, 134 Mass., 137; Clark v. Nichols, 107 Id., 547: Gard-
ner V. Joy, 9 Met., 177; Lamb v. Crafts, 13 Id., S-iS; Kd wards v.
Grand Trunk Eailway, 48 Me., 379; 54 Me , 105; Ellison v. Bri;;Jiaui,
88 Vt., 64; Atwater v. Hough, 39 Conn., 5o9; Sawyer v. Ware, 3G
Ala., 675.
» Tiede. Sales, § 59; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 105, et seq.
» Benj. Sales (Ed 1888), Am n. pp. 118-13J: Tisdaie v Han-is, 30
Pick., 9; Boardman v. Cutler, 128 Mass., 388; Pray v. Wih-Jk-I. (ill
Me., 430; Fine v. Hornsby, 2 Mo. App , 61; North v. Forrest, 1-t
Conn., 40p; Calvin v. Williams, 3 H &J.,3«; Riggs v. Magriidt-r, -
Cranch C. C, 143; Baldwin v. Williams, 3 Met. 367; Hudsou v. V\ pu-,
39 Ala., 294; Walker v. Suple, 54 Ga , 178. The statute of New York
expressly includes "things in action," Fart II, Title 3, C. 7, §3. And
see Archer v. Zeb, 5 Hill. 300; Peaboil> -- Spe^ers, 56 N. Y. 330.
§102.] STATUTE OF FRAUDS. ISS
not requisite where the buyer accepts part of the goods
sold, and actually receives the same, or gives something
to bind the bargain, or in part payment. As a rule,
therefore, if the contract contemplates the transfer of
title before severance, it falls within the fourth section ;
but, if the transfer is not to take place until after sever-
ance, it is within the seventeenth section.'
It should be noticed, however, that in regara to con-
tracts calling for a transfer of title before severance, the
authorities distinguish between the natural products of
the soil, fructus naturales, and annual crops, or the fruits
of cultivation, fructus indust/riales. If the subject of
sale be the former, it is quite generally held to fall
within the fourth section.' But where the natural pro-
duct of the soil is tobe severed immediately, or within a
reasonable time, and no further benefit is expected to
accrue to the purchaser from its connection with the soil,
the contract is governed by the seventeenth section.' It
' Smith V. Surman, 9 B. & C, 561; Falmouth v. Thomas, 1 C. &
M., 105; MarshaU v. Green, 1 C. P. D., 35; Parker v. Staniland, 11
East, 362; Sainsbury v. Matthews, 4 M. & W., 434.
« Crosby v. Wadsworth, 6 East, 603; Waddington v. Bristow, 2 B.
& P., 452; Carrmgton v. Roots, 2 M. & W., 248; G-reen v. Armstrong,
1 Denio, 550; Kingsley v. Holbrook, 45 N. H., 313; Olmstead v. Niles,
7N. H., 532; Patfcison's Appeal, 61 Pa. St., 294; Huff v. McCauley,
53 Pa. St., 306; Daniels v. Bailey, 48 Wis., 566; Lillie v. Dunbar, 63
Wis., 198; White v. Foster, 103 Mass., 375; Howe v. Batchelder, 49
N. H , 304; Buck v. Rockwell, 37 Vt., 157; Slocum v. Seymour, 36 N.
J. L., 138; Warren v. Leland, 3 Barb., 613; Vorebeck v. Rowe, 5
Barb., 303; HarreUv. Miller, 35 Miss., 700.
' Marshall v. Green, 1 0. P. D., 35; McClintock's Appeal, 71 Pa.
St., 365; Whitmarsh V. Walker, 1 Met , 313; Claflin v. Carpenter, 4
Met., 580; Nettleton v. Sikes, 8 Met., 34; Smith v. Bryan, 5 Md., 141
Boyce V. Washburn, 4 Hun, 793; Brown v. StancUft, 80 N. Y., 627
Erskinev. Plummer, 7 Greenl., 447; Banton v. Shorey, 77 Me., 48
Purney v. Piercy, 4frMd., 3 2.
154 STATUTOEY LIMIT OF £10. [ § 102.
is a well established American doctrine that a contract
forthexsale of annual cro'^s, fruotus industriales, is gov-
erned by the seventeenth section;' but some of the
English authorities hold, that where the contract calls for
the present transfer of title, it is not a contract for the
sale of goods, wares and merchandise, and not, therefore,
within the seventeenth section."
The American courts hold, also, that a contract for the
sale of fixtures is within the seventeenth section of the
statute."
4. What contracts reach the statutory Umit of £10. —
Where the sale consists of only one article, and its value
is known, or agreed upon by the parties, no difficulty on
this point is presented; but where the sale embraces
several articles, each of which is of less value than ten
pounds, the question may arise whether it reaches the
statutory limit. A satisfactory test may be found in
answer to the question : Was the transaction a unit, one
entire contract, although composed of dififerent parts?
If yea, and the aggregate value of the articles equals or
> MarshaU v. Ferguson, 23 Cal., 65; Bull v. Griswold, 19 III., 631:
Brioker v. Hughes, 4 Ind., 146; Dunne v. Furgeson, 1 Hayes, 540:
Brittain v. McKay, 1 Ired., 265; Moreland v. Myall, 14 Bush, 470:
Evans V. Roberts, 5 B. & C, 836; Jones v. Flint, 10 A. & E., 755:
Rodwell V. PhUUps, 9 M. & W., 503.
« HaUen v. Runder, 1 0. M. & R., 367; Mayfleld v. Wadsley, 3 B. &
C, 357; Parker v. Staniland, 11 East, 365.
» Ross' Appeal, 9 Pa. St., 491; Powell McAshan, 28 Mo., 70; Bost
wick V. Leach, 3 Day, 476; Strong v. Doyle, 110 Mass., 92; Shaw v.
Corbrey, 13 Allen, 463; Howard v. Fessenden, 14 AUen, 124; Morris,
V. French, 106 Mass., 326; Central Branch Bank v. Fritz, 20 Kan.,
430; Long v. White, 42 Ohio St., 59; Rogers v. Cox, 96 Lid., 157; Fos-
ter V. Mabe, 4 Ala., 403; Scoggin v. Slater, 23 Ala., 687; Dame v.
Dame,38N. H.,439.
§ 102. J ACCEPTANCE AND RECEIPT. 155
exceeds ten pounds, it is within the statute ; otherwise
not.' If, at the time of the bargain, it be uncertain
whether the subject of the sale will reach the statutory
limit, the sale will be held to come within the operation
of the statute if it turn out that the value actually equals
or exceeds ten pounds sterling."
A contract may include a sale of goods, and also other
matters not within the statute, as, for example, the rendi-
tion of service. In such case, if the value of the goods
be ten pounds or upwards, the statute wiU apply, at least
to the goods. But whether an action can be maintained
for the value of the services,, or other items included in
the contract besides the goods, is a question upon which
the authorities do not agree. One English case, at least,
holds the affirmative;' while some American cases hold
the negative, unless there was a separate and independent
consideration for the services, or other thing included.*
5. Acceptance cmd receipt. — To satisfy this alternative
condition of the statute, two things must concur; the
buyer must accept and actually recevoe part of the goods.
There may be an actual receipt without an acceptance ;
and so, also, there may be an acceptance without a re-
ceipt. A receipt may be, and often is, evidence of
acceptance ; but it is not conclusive, or the same thing.
' Baldey v. Parker, 2 B. & C, 37; GUman v. HiU, 36 N. H., 318;
Gault V. Brown, 48 N. H., 183; Brown v. HaU, 5 Lans., 177; Allard
V. Greasert, 61 N. Y., 1; Jenness v. "WendeU, 51 N. H., 63, 67.
' Bowman v. Coun, 8 Ind., 58; Carpenter v. Galloway, 73 Ind.,418;
Gault V. Brown, 48 N. H., 182; Brown v. Sanborn, 81 Minn., 403;
Hodges V. Richmond Mfg. Co., 9 E. I., 482; Watts v. Friend, 20 B. &
C, 446; Coy v. Bailey, 6 M. & G., 193.
« Harman v. Reeve, 35 L. J. C. P., 357; 18 C. B,, 586.
* McMullen v. Riley, 6 Gray, 505; Irvine v. Stone, 6 Gush., 508.
156 ACCEPTANCE AND EECEIPT. [ § 102.
The purchaser may receive the goods for the purpose of
•examination, that he may intelligently exercise his option
-of acceptance or rejection.' So, also, a receipt of goods
by a common carrier consigned to the purchaser, although
in general a delivery to the latter, is not an acceptance
by him ; the carrier not being his agent authorized to
.accept the goods."
A compliance with this condition of the statute re-
quires a delivery of the goods, or some portion of them,
by the vendor with the intention of vesting the right of
possession in the vendee ; and an actual acceptance by
the latter with the intention of taking possession as
owner.' Acceptance and receipt by a duly authorized
.agent is, in law, an acceptance and receipt by the princi-
pal, and hence a compliance with the statute.* But, a
common carrier, while an agent of the vendee to receive
> Smith V. Hudson, 6 B. & S., 431; 34 L. J. Q. B., 145; Chintz v.
Surey, 5 Bsp., 367; PhiUps v. BistoUi, 2 B. & C, 511; Cusao v. Robin-
.son, 1 B. & S., 299; SOL. J. Q. B., 261; Saunders v. Topp, 4 Ex., 390;
Stone V. Browning, 51 N Y., 211; 68 Id., 598; Brewster v. Taylor, 63
N. Y., 587; Retniokv. Sanford, 120 Mass., 309; Bacon v. Eccles, 48
Wis., 227; Gibbs v. Benjamin, 45 Vt., 124; Hewes v. Jordan, 39 Md.,
473; Caulkins V. Hellman, 47 N. Y., 449.
' Rogers v. Phillips, 40 N. Y., 519; Cross v. O'DonneU, 44 N. Y.,
661; Frostbury Mining Co. v. New England Glass Co., 9 Gush., 115;
■Grimes v. Van Fetchen, 20 Mich., 410; Loyd v. Wight, 20 Ga., 578;
Astley V. Emery, 4 M. & G., 262; Johnson v. Dodgson, 3 M. & W.,
656; Smith v. Hudson, 6 B. & S., 431; 34 L. J. Q. B., 145; Acebal v.
Levy, 10 Bing., 376; Maxwell v. Brown, 39 Me., 98; Hausman v. Nye,
62Ind.,485.
' 2 Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 484, 500; Benj Sales (Ed. 1888), pp. 126, et
seq., 142, et seq.\ Am. n. 151-155; Tiede Sales, §S 67-70.
* Cutwater v. Dodge, 6 Wend., 397; Barkley v. Rensselaer R. R. Co.,
71 N. Y., 205; Snow v. Warner, 10 Met , 133; Dean v. TaUman, 105
Mass., 443; Jones v. Mechanics' Bank, 29 Md., 387.
§ 102. J ACCEPTANCE AJSTD RECEIPT. 15T
the goods, is not, as we have just seen, his agent to ac-
cept them; unless, it should be added, he is specially
authorized to accept.
"What acts constitute acceptance has been considered by
the courts, and from the authorities the rule may be de-
duced, that the exercise of ownership over the goods by
the vendee, in whatever manner, or by whatever acts, is
evidence of • acceptance. '
As to whether inspection of the goods is requisite to
constitute acceptance there is some conflict of authority.'
But the doctrine is established by the weight of author-
ity, that so long as the right of rejection remains to the
purchaser, there has not been a sufficient acceptance to
satisfy this condition of the statute.*
The question in regard to the actual receipt of the goods
generally occurs, if at all, in cases where, at the time of
the sale, the goods are in the vendor's possession. In
these cases, generally, a transfer of the possession from
the vendor to the vendee, or his agent, is requisite. . But,
on the completion of the bargain, it may be agreed be-
' Parker v. "Wallis, 5 E. & B., 21; Gray v. Davis, 10 N. Y., 385;
Tower v. Tudhope, 37 Up. Can. Q. B., 200; Dallard v. Botts, 6 AUen
(N. B.), 443; Pinkham v. Mattox, 53 N. H., 606; Beaumont v. Beev-
gerie, 5 C. B , 301; Kent v. Huskinson, 3 B. & P., 233; Maberley v.
Sheppard, 10 Bing., 99.
» Morton v. Tibbetts, 15 Q. B., 428; 19 L. J. Q. B., 882; Currie v.
Anderson, 2 E. & E., 593; 39 L. J. Q. B., 87; Kibble v. Gough, 38 L.
T. (N. S.), 204; Hunt v. Hecht, 8 Ex.,~814; 32 L. J. Ex., 293; Coombs
V, Bristol & Exeter R. E. Co , 3 H. & N., 510; 27 L. J. Ex., 401; Smith
V. Hudson, 6 B. & S., 431; 34 L. J. Q. B., 145.
» Brand v. Fetch, 3 Keyes, 409; Shepherd v. Pressey, 33 N. H., 49;
Messer v. Woodman, 22 N. H., 181, 182; Gilman v. Hill, 36 N. H., 311;
Belt V. Marriott, 9 Gill., 331; Gr'oram v. Fisher, 30 Vt, 438; Clark v.
Tucker, 3 Sandf., 157.
158 DELIVEEY OF POSSESSIOK. [ § 102.
tween the parties that the vendor shall retain possession
as the purchaser's agent, or bailee ; and this will consti-
tute a suflBcient receipt. Or, at the time of the sale, the
goods may be in the possession of the buyer as agent or
bailee of the vendor ; in which case no act of receiving
is necessary, as the vendee thereafter holds the goods as
owner. Or, the goods at the time of the sale may be in,
or be placed in, the possession of a third person, to hold
as the agent or bailee of the purchaser, and this will be
a sufficient receipt by the vendee to satisfy the statute.
It should be noticed, however, that to render the receipt
by a third person sufficient, he must know of and con-
sent to the trust, as a person cannot ordinarily be made a
bailee or trustee without his knowledge and consent, or
by operation of law.'
A retention of lien by the vendor, or of any control
over the goods as vendor, is incompatible with such a
delivery of possession, acceptance and receipt as the
statute requires. In regard to retention of vendor's lien,
the reasoning runs thus : Receipt implies delivery ; there
can, therefore, be no actual receipt by the vendee untU
delivery by the vendor; the vendor's lien is lost by
delivery; therefore, if vendor's lien be lost there has
been an actual receipt by the vendee, otherwise not.'
' Bentall v. Bum, 8 B. & C, 423; Boardman v. Spooner, 13 Allen,
853; Bassettv. Camp, 54 Vt., 232; King v. Jarman, 35 Ark., 190;
Farina v. Home, 16 M. & W., 119; Godst v. Rose, 17 0. B., 239; 35 L.
J. 0. P., 61; Lucas v. Dorrien, 7 Taunt., 378; Edan v. Dudfleld, 1 Q.
B., 306; Lilliewhite v. Devereux, 15 M. & W., 285.
» Marsh V. Rouse, 44 N. Y., 643; Knight v. Mann, 118 Mass., 448;
Safford v. McDonough, 120 Mass., 290; Rodgers v. Jones, 139 Mass.j
432; Messer V. Woodman, 33 N. H., 182; Kirby v. Johnson, 23 Mo.,
354; Green V. Merriam, 28 Vt., 801; Edwards v. Grand Trunk R. R.
^ 1U2}J EARNEST, OE PAET PAYMENT. 159
6. Ea/mest, or part payment. — One of the alternative
conditions of the statute is, that the buyer shall "give
something in earnest to bind the bargain, or in part pay-
ment. ' ' The tv70 things are sometimes regarded as the
same, but such was not the original meaning of the
statute. Earnest binds the bargain ; or, in other words,
renders the bargain complete and binding under the
statute; while part payment pre-supposes, or assumes
the existence of a bargain. The something given in ear-
nest may be applied in payment, and thus become "part
payment;" but, among the Eomans, and as practised in
England at an early day, it was an overt act designed to
express the full and final assent of the parties to the con-
tract.* Earnest must be something of intrinsic value;
actually passed by the buyer to the vendor, and not
returned by him.' If part payment is relied on to satisfy
the statute, it must be something of pecuniary value,
actually paid and accepted ; a mere promise to pay will
not suffice.'
It is generally held in this country that the time of the
part payment is immaterial, if it be made before action
brought. But in the New York Statute of Frauds, the
provision corresponding to the English condition under
■Co., 54 Me., 105; Barrett v. Goddard, 3 Mason, 107; Chaplin v.
Rogers, 1 East, 195; Elmore v. Stone, 1 Taunt., 458; Jackson v.
Watts, 1 MoCord, 388.
' Bracton, 145; Glanville, ch. XTV; Beach v. Owen, 5 T. R., 409;
•Goodall V. Skelton, 2 H. BL, 316.
' Blenkinsop v. Clayton, 7 Taunt., 597; Howe v, Hayward, 108
Mass., 54; Noakes v. Morey, 30 Ind., 103.
» Combs V. Bateman, 10 Barb., 573; Dow v..Worthen, 37 Vt., 108;
Hunter v. Wetsell, 17 Hun, 135; Archer v. Zeb, 5 HiU, 205; Krohn v.
Bautz, 68 Ind., 377; Edgerton v. Hodge, 41 Vt., 676; Hicks v. Cleve-
land, 48 N. Y., 81; Walrath v. Ingles, 64 Barb., 265.
160 NOTE, ETC., IN WEITING. [§ 102.
consideration is, ' ' unless the buyer shall, at the time,,
pay some part of the purchase money.'" In construing
this provision, however, the courts have held that it is
satisfied if a subsequent part payment be made for the
express purpose of complying with the statute, and the
contract be then re-affirmed by the parties ; that in such
case the part payment is made "at the time," within
the meaning of the statute.'
While the American statutes of frauds generally, and
in the main, are the same in substance as the English,
ther^ may be differences in particulars and phraseology
which will require attention in weighing and applying
authorities.
7. Note or memorandwm in writing. — The third alter-
native of the statute is in these words : "Or that some
note or memorandum in writing of the said bargain be
made and signed by the parties to be charged by such
contract, or their age^its thereunto lawfully authorized."
This provision, it should be observed, was not intended
for cases in which the parties, either in person or by their
agents, have signed a written contract ; but it applies to
parol contracts, only. The written " note or memoran-
dum' ' of the contract, and the contract itself, are distinct
things. The ' ' note or memorandum ' ' assur&es the exis-
tence of an antecedent parol contract, of which the
writing required is a brief note or memorandum, an
essential under the statute to validate the parol contract.
The principal questions arising under this alternative
» N. Y. R. S., Part II, Title 3, Ch. VII, § 3, sub. 3.
= Hunter v. WetseU, 57 N. Y., 375; 84N. Y., 544; Webster v. ZieUy,
52 Barb., 483
§ 102.] TIME OF NOTING, ETO. 161
condition of the statute may be considered under two
heads :
I'irst. Time, and manner, of noting. — It is not essen-
tial that the note or memorandum should be made at the
same time with the contract;' and it has been held that
where the sale was made by an agent, his authority to
bind the principal by executing the memorandum after
the termination of his agency for other purposes, sur-
vives. " It is not necessary that all the terms of the con-
tract should be noted at one time, or on one piece of
paper; but it will suflBce if the whole contract be in sub-
stance contained on separate pieces, and these memoranda
make such reference to each other as to show that they
are parts of one whole.' Where the memorandum is
made up of two or more writings, they must either all be
signed, or the signed papers must so refer to the unsigned
parts that the latter may be identified by the description ;*
and the signed paper must refer to the unsigned ; a refer-
ence in the unsigned to the signed wiU not suffice. * Parol
> Bird V. Munroe, 66 Me., 347; Bill v. Bament, 9M. & W., 36; Tiede.
Sales, § 73; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 174, et seq.
* WiUiams v. Bacon, 2 Gray, 387.
» Peck V. Vandemark, 99 N. Y., 39; Jelks v. Barrett, 53 Miss., 315
Fisher v. Kuhn, 54 Miss., 480; Lernedv. Wannemacher, 9 Allen, 413
Lee V. Mahoney, 9 Iowa, 344; Tallman v. Franklin,* 14 N. Y., 584
Hinde v. Whitehouse, 7 East, 558; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 174, et
seq. ; Tiede. Sales, § 75.
* Tiede. Sales, § 75; Peek v. North StafiEordshire R. E. Co., H. L. C,
473-569;-Moalev.Buchanan,llGill&J.,333; Frank v.Miller, 38 Md.,
461; Farwell v. Mather, 10 Allen, 333; Hazard v. Day, 14 Allen, 494;
Ide V. Stanton, 15 Vt., 685; Stocker v. Partridge, 3 Roberts, 193.
' Freeport v. Bartol, 3 Greenl., 340; Brown v. Whipple, 58 N. H.,
209; Eidgway v. Ingraham, 50 Ind., 148; Johnson v. Buck, 35 N. J.
11
162 CONTENTS OF NOTE. [ § 102.
evidence to connect the parts is not admissible ; ' nor is it
admissible to show terms or stipulations not contained in
the written memorandum ;' but parol evidence is admissi-
ble to show that the writing is not a correct or full mem-
orandum of the parol agreement. ' And if the reference
contained in the signfed paper is ambiguous, parol evidence
will be allowed to explain the ambiguity, and identify the
document to which the reference is made ; this rule being
in accordance with the doctrine of interpretation appli-
cable to cases of latent ambiguity.*
Second. What the memorandum should contain. — Stated
generally, and in brief, the memorandum should contain,
in substance, all the material parts of the contract, includ-
ing the names, or a description, of both parties;' the sub-
L., 339; Beokwith v. Talbot, 95 U. S., 289; Morton v. Dean, 13 Met.,
388; Smith v. Jones, 66 Ga., 338.
' Hinde v. Whitehouse, 7 East, 558; Kenworthy v. Scofield, 2 B. &
C, 945; Pierce v. Corf, L. R. 9, Q. B., 210; Rishton v. Whatmore, 8
Ch. t)., 467; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 174.
' Fitzmaurice v. Bailey, 9 H, L. C, 78; Boydell v. Drummond, 11
East, 142; Holmes v. MitoheU, 7 C. B. N. S., 361; Benj. Sales (Ed.
1888), Am. n. p. 200.
• Elmore v. Kingsgate, 5 B. & C, 583; Goodman v. Griffiths, 1 H.
& N., 574; Acebal v. Levy, 10 Bing., 376; Pitts v. Beckett, 18 M &
W., 743.
* Eidgway v. Wharton, 6 H. L. C. , 238; Bauman v. James, 3 Ch., 508;
Long V. Hilar, 4 C. P. D., 450; Cave v. Hastings, Q. B. D., 125; Shard-
low V. CottereU, 18 Ch. D.. 280; 20 Ch. D., 90, C. A.
' Cooper V. Smith, 15 East, 103; Allen v. Bennett, 3 Taunt., 169;
Champion V. Plummer, SB. &P., 252; Lincoln, v. Erie Preserving
Co., 132 Mass., 129; Calkinsv. Falk, 38How. Pr., 62; McEb-oy v. Leery,
61 Md., 397; Anderson v. Harold, 10 Qhio, 399; Grafton v. Cummings,
99 U. S., 100; Sale v. Lambert, 18 Eq. Rep., 1; Rossiter v. Miller, 46
L. J. Ch. 228; 5 Ch. D , 648, C. A.
§ 10 2. J CONTENTS OF NOTE. 183
jeot matter, whicli must be correctly stated ; ' the price,
if actually agreed upon by the parties;' the stipulations
as to credit, and the time and place of payment, if such
there be;' and any other terms and conditions making a
part of the contract.* If the memorandum contains all.
the statutory requisites, and appears as an offer, its accept-
ance may be proved by parol in the absence of written
evidence of the acceptance.'
In regard to the signature of the party to be charged,
or his authorized agent, it is sufficient for the present
purpose to say, that this requirement of the statute has
generally been quite liberally construed by the courts,
where any thing has been done with the intention of sign-
ing.'
' Thornton v. Kempster, 5 Taunt., 786; Sari v. Bourdillon, 26 L. J.
C. P., 78; 1 C. B. (N. S.), 188; May v. Ward, 134 Mass., 137; McElroy
V. Buck, 35 Mich., 434; "Waterman v. Meigs, 4 Gush., 497: Penniman
V. Hartshorn, 18 Mass., 87.
» Ide V. Stanton, 15 Vt., 685; Smith v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 416; Phelps
V. Stillings, 6 N. H., 505; Adams v. McMillan, 7 Port., 78; Soles v.
• Hickman, 30 Pa. St., 180; O'Neil v. Crane, 67 Mo.. 250; Ai-giis Co. v.
Mayor, etc., of Albany, 55 N. Y., 495.
» Wright V. Weeks, 25 N. Y., 158; Norris v. Blair, 89 Ind., 90; WQ-
llams V. Kobinson, 73 Me., 186; Keiete v. Myer, 61 Md., 558; Smith v.
SheU, 82Mo.,215.
* Riley v. Famsworth, 116 Mass., S23; Oakmau v. Rogers, ISO Mass.,
214; Peltier v. CoUins, 3 Wend., 459.
» Warner v. Wellington, 3 Drew., 528; 25 L. J. Ch., 662; Smith v.
Neal, 2 C. B. (N. S.), 67; 26 L. J. C. P., 143; Justice v. Lang, 43 N. T.,
493; Mason v. Dicker, 73 N. Y., 598; Old Colony R. R. Co. v. Sears, 6
Gray., 25; Lowber v. Connit, 36 Wis., 176; Smith v. Smith, 8Blackf.,
208; DeCordon v. Smith, 9 Tex., 129; Lowrey v. Mechaffey, 10 Watts,
887.
« Tiede. Sales, §§79, 80; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 204, et seq.
164 PASSING OF TITLE. [§103.
§ 103. Contract of sale in respect of passing title. —
Having considered what contracts of sale are within the
statute of frauds, and the conditions requisite to render
such contracts ' ' good ' ' within the true meaning of the
statute, we come now to treat of contracts of sale in the
respect of passing property or title. The formation of a
valid contract is one thing, and its effect when formed,
another ; and here we dismiss the Statute of Frauds, and
recur to common law doctrines.
The first question demanding consideration, both on
account of its importance and frequent occurrence, is the
distinction between an executed and an executory contract
of sale. This distinction has been already briefly
noticed,' but some further attention will be given to it in
this connection. The importance of the question appears
from the fact that the answer may determine on whom
the loss falls, where the subject of the sale has been lost
or destroyed;" or decide conflicting claims upon the
property by the creditors of the vendor and vendee;",
and, also, in other cases sometimes arising, as where
• Supra, § 96.
» Martineau v. Kitching, L. R., 7 Q. B., 436; Logan v. La Mesxirier, •
6 Moore, P. C, 116; Bugg v. Minett, 11 East, 200; Zaquey v. FumeU,
3 Camp., 240; OUphant v. Baker, 5 Denio, 379; Gilbert v. N. Y. C.
R. R. Co., 4 Hun, 378; Joyce v. Adams, 8 N. Y., 291 ; Pleasants v.
Pendleton, 6 Rand., 473; Lingham v. Eggleston, 27 Mich., 324;
Hutchinson v. Hunter, 7 Pa. St., 140; Waldo v. Belcher, 11 Ired.,
609.
' Hanson v. Myer, 6 East, 614; Acraman v. Morris, 8 C. B., 449;
Golder v. Ogden, 15 Pa. St., 358; Brewer v. Smith, 3 Greenl., 44;
Weld V. Cutler, 2 Gray, 195; Huff v. Hires, 39 N. J. L., 4 ; Hale v.
Huntley, 21 Vt., 147; Smart v. Batchelder, 51 N. H., 140; Comfort v.
Kiersted, 26 Barb., 473; Ward v. Shaw, 7 Wend., 404; Fosdick v.
Sohall, 99 U. S., 235.
§ 103.] INTENTION AND DELIVEBT. 165
there are conflicting claims between vendees touching the
ownership of the property, or where it becomes neces-
sary to decide upon the proper form of action for the
recovery of the goods. '
The principal' rules governing the transfer, to be con-
sidered in determining the question in cases liable to
arise in practice, will now be noticed briefly :
1. InUntion of the parties, — The leading rule is, the
intention of the parties. The intention may be expressed,
or implied from the circumstances; and when ascer-
tained, if legal, it will be decisive of the question. On
this point the authorities are abundant and harmonious.'
2. Delivery. — Treating delivery as related to a trans-
fer of title, it may be stated that an actual delivery of
possession from the vendor to the vendee, is not requi-
site to pass the title as between the parties, unless it was
their intention that the title should not pass before such
delivery. But it is quite generally held that retention of
possession by the vendor is prima facie eYiAenae of fraud
upon creditors and subsequent purchasers."
' Horr V. Baker, 8 Cal., 603; Croft v. Bennett, 2 N. Y., 258 ; Kim-
berly v. Patchin, 19 N. Y., 330; Groat v. Gile, 51 N. Y., 481; Pfistner
V. Bird, 43 Mich., 14; Barrow v. Coles, 3 Camp., 92; Mires v. Solesby,
2 Mod., 243; Cushmanv. Holyoke, 34 Me., 289; Devane v. Fennell,
2 Ired., 37; Davis v. HiU, 3 N. H , 383; Strauss v. Ross, 25 Ind , 300.
« Tiede. Sales, § 83; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), Am. n. pp. 239, 240;
RusseU V. Carrington, 42 N. Y,, 118; s. c, 1 Am. Rep., 498 ; Terry v.
Wheeler, 35 N. Y., 525; Hurd v. Cook, 75 N. Y.. 454; Hatch v. Oil
Co., 100 IT,. S., 131; Elgee v. Cotton Cases, 22 Wall., 187 ; BeUows v.
Wells, 36 Vt., 599; Fitch v. Burk, 38 Vt., 689; CaUagan v. Myers, 89
111., 570; Weed v.. Boston Ice Co., 12 Allen, 377; Stone v. Peacock, 35
Me., 388; Lester v. East, 49 Ind., 588; Fletcher v. Ingram, 46 Wis.,
201.
'Simmons v. Swift, 5 B. & C, 857; Gilmore v. Supple, 11 P. C,
551; Dixon v. Yates, Barn. & Ad., 313; Wade v. Moffitt, 21 111., 110.
166 SPECIFIC GOODS, ETC. [§ 103.
3. Ddivery without transfer of title. — The vendor
may deliver possession to the purchaser, reserving to
himself the title until payment of the purchase price.
Delivery, however, without reservation of the title by
express agreement is presumptively a waiver of prepay-
ment, and passes title to the vendee.'
If the vendor thus retains title, and the purchase price
be not paid according to the agreement, he may recover
possession of the goods.'
The delivery of goods to a common carrier consigned
to the vendee, is, as a rule, delivery to the vendee, and
transfers the title to him. But where the bill of lading
is taken by the vendor, to his own order, he reserves,
presumptively, the title and the jus disponendi, and is at
liberty to dispose of the goods to others.' The bill of
lading represents the goods, and its transfer operates as
a transfer of the same. *
4. Sale of sjoecifio goods wnconditionally. — ^In a con-
tract of sale of specific goods unconditionally, presump-
' Hammet v. linneman, 48 N. Y., 399; Bowen v. Buck, 13 Pa. St.,
146; Hariow v. Ellis, 15 Gray, 229; Mixey v. Cook, 31 Me., 340.
• Ayer v. Bartlett, 9 Pick., 156; Reed v, Upton, 10 Pick., 532; Haa-
brouck V. Lounsbeny, 26 N. Y., 598; Brant v. Bowlby, 2 B. & Adol.,
933; Thompson v. Ray, 46 Ala., 224; Fosdick v. ShaU, 99 U. S., 250;
Boon V. Moss, 70 N. Y., 465; Vassar v. Buxton, 86 N. C, 335 ; Fleck
V. "Warner, 25 Kan., 493.
• Dows V. Nat. Exch. Bank, 91 U. S., 618; St. Joze v. Indians, 1
Wheat., 308; Hobart v. Littlefleld, 13 R. I., 341; Farmers', etc., Bank
V. Logan, 74 N. Y., 568; Wilmshurst v. Bowker, 2 M. & G., 792;
EUershaw v. Magniac, 6 Ex., 570.
• Marine Bank v. Wright, 48 N. Y., 1; Bank of Rochester v. Jones,
4N. Y., 497; Mich. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Phillips, 60 HI., 190; Schu-
maker v. Eby, 24 Pa. St., 531; First Nat. Bank v. Bailey, 115 Mass.,
280.
§ 10 3. J GOODS NOT SPECIFIC. 167
tively the title passes immediately; and, according to
American authorities, there is an immediate transfer of
title in case the price has bepn paid, or credit expressly
given. But where the goods are not sold on credit, pre-
payment of price is a condition precedent to the transfer
of title. ' It should be stated, however, that some of the
later English cases hold, that the title passes on comple-
tion of the contract, without prepayment of price ; but
that the vendor may withhold possession until the price
is paid. The American holding seems the more reasonable."
5. Sale of specific chattels conditionally. — It is quite
obvious that on a sale of specific chattels subject to a
condition precedent, the title will not pass until the con-
dition is performed. While the general doctrine thus
stated is quite simple, and universally recognized, the
question as to when the contract is encumbered with a
condition precedent, has given rise to considerable dis-
cussion, and some conflict of judicial opinion. As the
limitation of this treatise will not permit a full examina-
tion of the question, the reader is referred to the text-
books hereunder named, and the authorities therein cited,
for an exhaustive discussion of the subject."
6. Sale of goods not specific. — Identification of the
subject matter of. the sale is essential to the transference
of title thereto ; and hence, where the contract is for the
sale of a quantity of goods without reference to any par-
'Tiede. Sales, §86; BaiTett v. Pritchard, 2 Pick., 513; Ayer v.
Bartlett, 9 Pick., 156; Reed v. Upton, 10 Pick., 523; Fishback v. Van
Dusen, 33 Minn., Ill; 33 Am. L. R., 506, note.
' See Tiede. Sales, § 86.
» Tier.e. Sales, § 87; Benj. Sales (Ed. 188^), p. 244, et seq.; Am. n.,
263, et seq.; 2 Kent Com., p. 497; 3 Soh. Pers. Prop., p. 381.
168 GOODS NOT 8PBCIFI0. [ § 103.
ticular lot, or of a portion of a larger bulk, no title
passes in severalty until the goods which are to consti-
tute the subject of the sale are identified, or selected for
transfer.
Thus far the authorities are substantially in acoord,
and a few citations will suffice. ' In regard to the sale of
an unidentified portion of a larger bulk, some authorities
hold that, while title in severalty cannot be acquired by
the vendee without a separation from the bulk, he may
acquire title to a part in common with the other pro-
prietors of the mass.' This doctrine may be accepted as
applicable to cases where it appears that the parties
intended a transfer of the title before a separation of the
part from the whole.
Y. Appropriation on sale of goods not specific. — Under
a contract for the sale of goods not specific, in order to
pass the title in severalty to the vendee, there must be an
appropriation of particular goods to the contract ; and
this must be with the consent of the vendee, express or
implied.*
• Foot V. Marsh, 51 N. Y., 288; Brewer v. Smith, 3 Greenl., 44;
MerriU v. Hunnewell, 13 Pick., 213; Woods v. McGee, 7 Ohio, 467;
Hutchinson v. Hunter, 7 Pa. St., 140; Waldo v. Belcher, 11 Ired.>
609; Bailey v. Smith, 43 N. H., 141; Wallace v. Breeds, 13 East, 533;
Busk V. Davis, 3 M. & S., 897.
« Kimberly v. Patchin, 19 N. Y., 330; Hoyt v. Hartford Ins. Co., 26
Hun, 416; Young v. Miles, 20 Wis., 615; Iron CUflfs Co. v. Buhl, 43
Mich,. 86; Hurfl v. Hires, 89 N. J. L., 581; PhiUpsv. Ocmulgee Mills,
55 Ga., 634.
» Tiede. Sales, § 89; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), pp. 283-293, 312-314;
Hanson v Myer, 6 East, 614; Atkinson v. Bell, 8 B. & C, 277; Moody
V. Brown, 34 e., 107; Grove v. Brien, 8 How.. 429; Bank v. Bangs,
103 Mass., 391, 295; Bennett v. Smith, 15 Wend., 493; Shawham v.
Van Nast, 25 Ohio St., 490; Aldridge v. Johnson, 7 E. & B., 885; 26
§ 104.] MISTAKE, CONSIDERATION. 169
§ 104. Mistake, failure, and illegality of considera-
tion. — 1. Mistake. — We have seen' that the assent of
parties is an essential element of a valid contract ; that
the minds of the parties must meet and assent to the
same thing, in the same sense, at the same instant of
time ; and consequently, that a mistake of fact in regard
to the subject matter, or terms of the contract, in anj
material respect, will be fatal to the validity of the con-
tract. Or, more accurately stated, in case of such a
mistake, no contract is made for want of the requisite
assent of parties.
The leading rules governing mistakes are the follow-
ing.
1. The mistake under consideration is one of fact, and
not of loAO. Every person competent to contract is pre-
sumed to know the law ; the ancient and universal rule
being, ignoranUa juris neminem excusat.
2. As a general rule it is only a mutual mistake that
will render a contract void, or voidable ; but a mistake
on one side and a fraud on the other will have the same
effect. Where one party only acts under a mistake, the
other party not being responsible for it, the contract is
ordinarily enforceable. But to this rule there are excep-
tions based on special circumstances to which the reason
of the rule is not applicable; and, as "reason is the soul
of the law, when the reason of any rule ceases, so does
the law Itself." The maxim is, cessante ratione legis
cessat ipsa leas.
L. J. B., 396; Fragano v. Icng, 4 B. & C, 219; Krulder v. Ellison, 47
N. Y.,'86; Alexander v. Gardner, 1 Bing., N. C, 671.
' Supra, § 99.
170 FAILURE OF CONSIDEEATION. [ § 104.
3. A mistake of the character now defined will excuse
a party from the performance of an executory contract ;
and will also entitle him to rescind it after execution if
he places the other party in statu quo. "And if that be
not possible^" says Benjamin, "the deceived party must
be content with a compensation in damages. " If he has
paid for an article he may recover back the money, pro-
vided he restores the article to the other party in the
same condition, substantially, as when received by him,
otherwise not.'
2. Failure of oonsideraUon. — It is an elementary prin-
ciple that a sufficient consideration is essential to a valid
coiitract. In general a valuable consideration is requi-
site ; but a good consideration, " such as that of blood, or
of natural love and affection," will suffice in some cases."
Mr. Bishop's concise and comprehensive definition of a
consideration is, " something esteemed in law as of value,
in exchange for which the promise in a contract is
made;" and such a consideration only is in question
under the head of failure.
Cases sometimes occur in which the consideration,^
apparently valuable and sufficient at the time of the con-
tract, turns out to be false or valueless, revealing a total
failure of consideration. Money paid or deposited on
such a contract may be recovered back."
' Benj. Sales (Ed. 188S), pp. 346-356; Am. n., p. 356; Bishop Cont.
(Enl. Ed ), §§ 46^-466; 693-'r06; 1 Story Eq. Jur., § 143, et seq.; Pom.
Eq., §853, eiseg.
' 1 Pars. Cont., p. 437, et seq.; 1 Bouv. L. Diet, " opneideration ; "
Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed.), § 35, et seq.
» 1 Pars. Cont., p. 463; Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed.), § 71; Benj. Sales
(Ed. 1888), pp. 346-855; Am. n., p. 356; Bouv. L. Diet., " considera-
tion,'' sub. 13.
§ 104. J ILLEGALITY OF CONSIDEEATION. Ill
It should be noticed, however, that if the purchaser
gets what he bargained for, in the absence of mistake or
fraud, he will not be permitted to allege failure of con-
sideration, however worthless it may be, in avoidance of
the contract.'
If the failure of consideration be only partial, the
buyer's right to rescind will depend upon the entirety, or
divisibility, of the contract. If the contract be entire,
and the buyer has not accepted, or is not willing to
accept, a partial performance, he may reject the contract
in toto, and recover back the price. But if he has
accepted a partial performance, he is not at liberty to
rescind, and must seek another remedy. If, however,
the consideration and the agreement founded thereon are
both divisible, consisting of several parts, and the part
failure of consideration can be apportioned to a corre-
sponding part of the agreement, it may be regarded and
treated as several contracts, and the rights of the parties
adjusted accordingly. Money paid on the failed portion
of the agreement may be recovered back,'
3. Illegality/ of consideration. — It is a well established
principle that a contract founded upon a consideration,
or requiring the performance of an act which is immoral,
illegal, or contrary to public policy, will fall before the
judgment of a court, either of law or equity. If the
consideration for an indivisible promise be in part legal
and in part illegal, the promise will be of non-effect,
because of resting in part upon an illegal consideration
which vitiates the whole ; but if the promise be divisible,
' Citations last supra.
» See authorities cited, supra.
172 FEAUDULENT SALES. [ § 105.
or in other words if there be two promises, the one rest-
ing on the legal, and the other on the illegal, considera-
tion, the former will stand and the latter fall.'
§ 105. Fraudulent sales. — It is a well established and
wholesome rule, that fraud renders aU contracts void-
able. This for two reasons : first, such a contract lacks
the assent of the deceived party, for an assent obtained
by fraud, in contemplation of law, is no real assent ; and,
secondly, it is against the spirit and policy of the law to
permit the defrauding party to profit by his own wrong.'
It is quite difficult, if not impossible, to formulate a
definition of fraud that shall be at once sufficiently accu-
rate and comprehensive ; and this for the reason that its
modes and forms are multifarious, and its disguises subtle
and specious. It will better subserve our purpose to
point out the principal elements of such fraud as will
avoid a contract of sale, and the rules applicable thereto.
1. Misrepresentation, or conoeahnent, of a material
fact. — To constitute such a fraud there must be a mis-
representation or concealment of a material fact.
It is not necessary that the misrepresentation be in
words; it may be effected by acts and devices which
create in the mind of the other party a mistaken belief
in regard to the fact. Great skill is often exercised in
• Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed.), §§59, 74, 469, et seq.; 1 Pars. Cont. (7
Ed.), pp. 456-459; Bouv. L. Diet , "consideration," sub. 11.
»Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 360. et seq.; Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed.),
§§ 641, 642; Dambmann v. Schulting, 75 N. Y., 55; Rodman v. Thal-
heimer, 7 Pa. St., 233; Smith v. Smith, 21 Pa. St., S67; Jones v.
Emery, 40 N.H., 348.
§ 105. J FEAUDULENT SALES. 173
practicing deceit.' But concealment alone of a material
fact is not necessarily fraudulent in law, however it may
be judged in the forum of conscience ; it is only so when
a party is bound to disclose his knowledge in regard to
all material facts by reason of his fiduciary relation to the
other party; or where the subordinate condition, or
mental incapacity, of the other party demands of him
entire frankness and scrupulous honesty." As a general
rule, with the exceptions now stated, where an article is
offered for sale, and is open to the inspection of the pur-
chaser, he will not be allowed to complain that the-
alleged defects were not pointed out to him by the
vendor.
There are two maxims that apply in such cases,
namely : Caveat emptor, and simplex commendado non
ohligat. The purchaser, in the absence of fraud on the
part of the vendor, and with an opportunity of ascertain-
ing the character and quality of the goods, must rely
upon his own care and judgment.' This rule, however^
must be taken with the qualification that the use of any
device by the vendor to induce the buyer to omit inquiry,
or to divert his attention fram defects, may constitute
fraud.
While the maxim ca/oeat emptor requires the exercise of
care and judgment on the part of the purchaser, there
' Tiede. Sales, §§ 158, 164; Benj. Sales (Ed 1888), p. 361; Bishop
Cont. (Enl. Ed.), §§ 651, 653.
« Tiede. Sales, § 159; Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed.), §§ 655-660; Beilj.
Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 361; 3 Kent Com., p. 483, et seg.; Tate v. William-
son, L. E. 3 Ch., 55; McPherson v. Watt, L. R. 3 App. Cas., 354^
Yosti V. Laughran, 49 Misso., 594; Harkness v. Fraser, 13 Fla., 336.
» Tiede. Sales, § 159; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 363; 3 Kent Com.,
p. 485.
1T4 INTENTION TO DECEIVE. [ § 105.
are cases holding that he may rely on a misrepresenta-
tion without inquiry, believing it to be true, and yet
have his action for fraud. ' These cases do not seem to
be whoUy consistent with the general trend of authori-
ties on the subject.
The vendor may lawfully commend his goods, even to
exaggeration, provided he do not make any false repre-
sentations as to matters of fact. The mere expression of
an opinion in regard to the qualities or value' of an article
will not, as a rule, constitute an element of fraud ; the
distinction in law is between the expression of an opinion
and the statement of &faoV
2. Intention to deoei/ve. — An essential element of a
fraudulent sale is an intention to deceive; or, what is
equally culpable, a reckless false statement of facts to
induce a purchase, without knowledge of the truth or
falsity of the statement. Fraud cannot be predicated of
representations which the vendor honestly believes to be
true, albeit they are false in fact. But a party has no
moral or legal right to make representations of the truth
or falsity of which he is ignorant; and if such repre-
' Jones V. Eimmer, 14 Ch. D., 588, 593; Redgrave v. Hurd, 20 Ch.
D , 1, 13; Hitchins v. Pettengill, 58 N. H., 3; Central Railway t.
Hisch, Law Rep , 2, H. L., 99, 120; 3 Chit. Cont. (11 Am. Ed.). 1040,
1041; Leake Cont. (3 Ed.), 380-383; Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed.), § 655.
' Ellis V. Andrews, 56 N. Y., 83; Bishop v. SmaU, 63 Me., 12; Som-
ers V. Richards, 46 Vt., 170; Homer v. Perkins, 124 Mass., 431; Busch-
man v. Cold, 53 Md., 303, 307; Sledge v. Scott, 56 Ala., 202 ; Gordon
V. Butler, 105 U. S., 553; GrafEenstein v. Epstein, 23 Kan., 443; Tiede.
Sales, §§ 158, 166; Bishop Cent. (Enl. Ed.), § 664 ; 3 Kent Com., pp.
485-487.
§ 105.] DAMAGES SUSTAINED. 175
sentations prove false, he will be held responsible as for
an intentional misrepresentation. '
3. Helicmoe •wpon the representations. — To sustain a
charge of fraud, it must appear that the false rep-
resentations were relied upon by the party whom they
were intended to influence ; otherwise he could not com-
plain of having been deceived, or defrauded, by such
representations. It is not necessary, however, that the
misrepresentations should have constituted the sole
inducement to the contract ; but to sustain the -charge of
fraud, it must appear that the false representations were
so far influential, that without them assent to the con-
tract would not have been given."
4. Damiage sustained. — Another essential element in
an actionable fraud, is the resulting damage sustained by
the party deceived. No matter how gross the fraud, if
no damage ensues no cause of action arises. The doc-
trine applicable is tersely stated by Lord Croke thus :
*' Fraud without damage, or damage without fraud,
gives no cause of action." '
' Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed ), § 661; Tiede. Sales, § 160; French v. Vin-
ing, 102 Mass., 132; Weeks v. Buxton, 7 Vt., 67; Cowley v. Smith, 46
N. J. L., 380; Boyd v. Browne, 6 Barr, 310; Seller v. Clelland, 2 Col.,
532; "Weir v. BeU, L. E., 3 Ex. D., 238; Mitchell v. Zimmerman, 4
Tex , 75; Grim v. Byrd, 32 Gratt., 293; Parmlee v. Adolph, 28 Ohio
St , 10.
> Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed.), §§ 653, 654 ; Tiede. .Sales, § 161 ; HuU v.
Fields, 76 Va., 591; Winter v. Bandell, 30 Ark., 363; Gregory v.
SchoeneU, 55 Ind., 101 ; Smith v. Hughes, 6 Q. B., 597; 2 Sch. Pers.
Prop., p. 632.
« 3 Bulst., 95. Tiede. Sales, § 163; Smith v. Kay, 7 H. L. Gas., 774;
Atwood V. SmaU, 6 Clark & F., 443; Weaver v. Wallace, 9 N. J. L.,
251; Neideferv. Chastain, 71 Ind., 363; viorriaon v. Lods, 39 Cal.,
885;, Phipps v. Buckman, 30 Pa. St., 403; Hanson v. Edgerton, 29
176 FEAUD ON VENDOR. [§105.
5. Fraud on the vendor. — "What has now been said of
fraudulent sales relates mainly to frauds practiced by the
vendor upon the buyer. The latter may become the
fraudulent party to the contract, and the former his
victim. Frauds of the buyer are various in forms and
modes, but all are schemes to procure from the vendor
his goods without payment of the purchase price. In
essence and moral quality, they constitute the crime of
larceny in the guise of honest traffic. The effect of the
buyer's fraud upon the contract is substantially the same
as that of the vendor, to render it void ah 'mitio, or void-
able.'
The doctrine is often met with in the books, that in
case of a fraudulent purchase the title does not pass from
the vendor to the vendee. This is not an accurate state-
ment of the law. A distinction should be made between
a sale to a fraudulent purchaser, and a mere delivery of
goods into his possession. Or, differently stated, a dis-
tinction between a case where the owner intends to
transfer both title and possession, and where he only
intends to transfer the possession. In the former case
there is a sale, however fraudulently procured ; in the
latter not. This distinction is manifest in view of the
effect of a transfer of the goods by the fraudulent vendee
to a third party, a hona fide purchaser. If the vendee
takes both title and possession, and transfers the goods
to a hona fide purchaser before disaffirmance of the con-
tract by the vendor, such purchaser will take a good
N. H., 357; Young v. Hall, 4 Ga., 95; Castleman v. GrifBn, 13 Wis.,
535.
' Tiede. Sales, g 168; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 866.
§ 105.] FRAUD ON TENDOE. 177
title which he can maintain against the rights of the
original vendor. On the contrary, if the original trans-
feree took possession only, the vendor not intending to
pass the title, he cannot convey a title to anybody, and
for the sufficient reason that he has none to convey. It
may be difficult to see, at a glance, how the defrauded
vendor may reclaim his property from his vendee when the
title has passed to the latter, so that he could trans-
fer a good title to a third party. Chief Justice
Shaw speaks to this difficulty in Hoffman v. Nolle,''
where he says : " It is a well established rule, that
goods obtained by fraud in the sale, as by false
representations, may be reclaimed by the vendor.
This does not proceed on the ground that the property
in the goods does not pass by the sale, but that the dis-
honest purchaser shall not hold it against the deceived
vendor." But when such a purchaser transfers the
goods to a third party, a hona fide purchaser, the superior
equity of the latter will prevail over the legal rights of
the vendor."
Cases sometimes occur in which a buyer purchases
goods with the intention of not paying for them. The
doctrine may be regarded as established by the weight of
'6 Met., 73.
' Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 366, et seq.; Tiede. Sales, § 168; Steven-
son V. Newnham, 18 C. B., 385; SSL. J. C. P., 10; Pease v. Gloaheo,
L. R., 1 P. C , SSO; Kingsford v. Merry, 11 Ex., 577; S5 L. J. Ex., 166;
Oakes v. Turquand, L. E. 2, H. L., 3S5; Naugatuck Cutlery Co. v. Bab-
cock, 23 Hun, 481; Van Nest v. Conover, 20 Barb., 547; Butler v.
Hildreth, 5 Met., 49; Buckley v. Morgan, 46 Conn., 893; Dibley v,
Sheldon, 10 Blatch., 178; Easter v. Allen, 8 Allen, 7; Pringle v. Phil-
lips, 5 Sandf., 157; Devoe v. Brandt, 53 N. Y., 463 ; Paddon v. Tay-
lor, 44 N. Y., 371.
12
178 PEAUD ON OEEDITOES. [ § 105.
authority, that in such cases the purchase is fraudulent
and voidable, although no false representations were
made, or active fraud committed by the vendee. It
should be noticed that to constitute this species of fraud
the purchaser, at the time of the sale, must have an affirm-
ative intention not to pay for the goods ; a mere nega-
tive or purposeless condition of mind wiU not suffice.'
6. Fraud on creditors. — "We have seen " that one of
the limitations to the absolute ownership of property, is
its liability for the satisfaction of the just debts of the
owner; that he cannot legally alienate it by gift, or
otherwise dispose of it, in fraud of his creditors.
The English statutes on this subject' have been incor-
porated, in substance, into the statutes of most, if not
all, of the States of this country ; and they expressly
declare void all conveyances made with intent to "hinder,
delay, or defraud creditors." These statutes embody,
clearly express, and re-enforce by legislative sanction, a
principle of the common law. By virtue of this prin-
ciple, a contract unimpeachable by the parties, may be
void as against existing creditors. And a transfer may
be avoided by subsequent creditors, even, where it is made
to appear that the conveyance was made for the purpose
of defrauding such creditors, as a voluntary conveyance
' Tiede. Sales, § 170; Hennequin v. Naylor, 24 N. Y,, 139 ; Dow v.
Sanborn, 3 AUen, 181; Donaldson v. Farwell, 93 U. S., 631; Wright
V. Brown, 67 N. Y., 1 ; Farges v. Pugh, 93 N. C, 31 ; MuUiken i.
MiUar, 12 E. I., 296.
» Supra, % 5.
* 13 Eliz., ch. 6, and 27 Eliz., ch. 4.
§106.j ILLEGAL OONTEAOTS OF SALE. 179
with the view of shielding the property from liability for
anticipated indebtedness. '
Discussion of subordinate and incidental rules appli-
cable to the species of frauds under consideration is
necessarily omitted under the prescribed limitations of
this treatise. The reader will find these rules fully dis-
cussed in the text-books hereunder named, and the
adjudications therein cited.
*)
§ 106. Illegal contracts of sale. — Illegality of con-
sideration has been already noticed." Illegality of sub-
ject-matter, purpose, or tendency, wiU now be consid-
ered.
The general doctrine on this subject is concisely and
comprehensively stated by Mr. Bishop as follows : "Any
act which is forbidden either by the common or the stat-
utory law — whether it is •maVwrn m se, or merely malv/m'
prohihitvm, \ indictable, or only subject to a penalty or
forfeiture ; or however otherwise prohibited by a statute,
or the common law — cannot be the foundation of a
valid contract ; nor can any thing auxiliary to, or pro-
motive of, such act. And this doctrine is the same in
the equity tribunals as in those of law.'"
■ Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 413, et seq.; Tiede. Sales, § 174; 2 Kent
Com., p. 440, et seq.; 3 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), pp. 447, n. (g), 440-443;
Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed.), §§1200-1213; 2 Soh, Pars. Prop., p. 101, et
eeq.
» § 104, sub. 8.
> Bishop Cont. CBnl. Ed.), § 171; and see Id., § 169, et seq.; Tiede.
Sales, § 290, et seq.; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 463, et seg.; 2Sch. Pers.
Prop., p. 643, etseq.; Cannan v. Bryce, 3 B. & Aid., 179, 183, 184;
White V. Buss, 3 Cush., 448, 450; Poplett v. Stockdale, Ryan & M. N.
P., 837; Bartlett v. Vinor, Garth., 251; Furgussou v. Norman, 5
180 CONDITIONS, ETC, [ § 107.
If the contract of sale be void from any of the causes
now mentioned, neither party can maintain an action
upon it. Ex turpi causa, non oritur actio is the maxim
that applies. Nor will either party be relieved from the
effect of executing the sale ; the vendor will be at liberty
to retain the price if it be paid, and the buyer may hold
the goods if delivered.'
§ 107. Conditions, and conditional sales Of condi-
tions affecting the sale and transfer both of personal and
real property, there are three kinds, namely : Conditions
precedent, subsequent, and concurrent. If by the terms,
or true construction, of the contract, the property in the
subject of the sale does not vest in the vendee until per-
formance of the condition, it is a concfetion precedent.
If the condition be such that the effect of its non-
performance will be to defeat or impair an estate or
interest already vested, it is a condition subsequent. If,
by the terms, or true construction, of the contract, its
execution or performance by the parties simultaneously is
required or intended, the condition is termed mutual or
concurrent, and under such a condition neither party will
be heard to complain of its non-performance by the
other, without performance, or an offer of performance,
on his own part.
Bing. N. C, 76; Cook v. Phillips, 56 N. Y., 310; Hathaway v. Moran,
44 Me., 67; Carpenter v. Beer, Comb., 346; Stanley v. Nelson, 38 Ala.,
514; Hall v. Mullin, 5 Har. & J., 190, 193; Sykes v. Beadon, 11 Ch.
D., 170; Hotham v. East India Co., 1 Doug., 373, 377.
> Monteflori v. Montefiori, Wm. BL, 368; Peck v. Burr, 10 N. Y.,
294; Horton v. BuflSngton, 105 Mass., 399; Moore v. Murdock, 26
Cal., 514; Shuman v. Shuman, 37 Pa. St , 90; O'Donnell v. Sweeney,
5 Ala., 467; Tucker v. West, 39 Ark., 886; Finn v. Donahue, 35 Conn.,
216; Ryno v. Darby, 30 N. J. Eq., 331.
§107.] CONDITIONS, ETC. 181
A promise, statement, or representation, made before,
or at the time of the contract, is not necessarily a part of
it in contemplation of law ; but may be merely an induce-
ment, or something collateral, to the contract. If it be
an integral and essential part of the contract, the ques-
tion may arise whether it is a dependent, or an inde-
pendent, covenant. If the former, it becomes in effect
a condition precedent, or concurrent, the performance of
which must be made or tendered by the covenantor
before he can rightfully claim performance by the other
party to the contract. If the latter, each party is bound
to perform on his part without regard to performance or
non-performance of the other party ; or, failing, he will
be liable to an action for a breach of contract ; and non-
performance by the other party will entitle him to dam-
ages for the breach.
The distinctions between the several .kinds of condi-
tions often present difllculties in construction, which
have produced some confusion and conflict in the adjudi-.
cations. And, indeed, the whole subject of conditions is
generally regarded as ' ' subtle and perplexing ; ' ' but the
authorities hereunder cited will, it is believed, furnish the
intelligent and discriminating student and practitioner
with ample means of mastering all the difficulties
involved.'
' Tiede. Sales, § 200, et seq.; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 507, et seq ;
Am. n., p. 551, et seq.; 2 Sch. Pars. Prop., p. 2113, et seq.; Hickman v.
Shimp, 109 Pa. St., 16; Eedman v. Mtna. Ins. Co., 49 Wis., 438; Fish-
back v. VanDusen, 33 Minn., Ill, 116; Cad well v. Blake, 6 Graj^.
403; Chapin v. School District, 35 N. H., 450; Sedden v. Prindle, 17
Barb., 466; N. & N. W. R. B. Co. v. Jones, S Cold., 584; Jones v.
Barkley, 2 Doug., 684-691.
182 WAEEANTT. [§108
§ 108. Warranty. — A warranty in the sale of goods
is a collateral undertaking, forming a part of the contract
by agreement of the parties, express or implied ; but in
the absence of such agreement, it is not an essential ele-
ment of the contract, for a sale may be complete without
a warranty. Antecedent representations made by the
vendor as an inducement to the buyer, but not entering
into and forming part of the contract, are not warranties.
On the other hand, a representation made during the
negotiation and before the conclusion of the bargain,
may, by the express or implied agreement of the parties,
enter into and become a part of the contract, and a war-
ranty.* A warranty given after the consummation of
of the sale, without some new consideration, is void.'
There are express, and implied, warranties. An
express warranty is the direct statement of a material
fact, either past or existing ; but no form of words is
requisite to constitute a warranty, a mere affirmation
being sufficient when it is so intended. ,For determining
whether an affirmation amounts to a warranty, this test
has been given : ' ' Did the vendor assume to assert a
fact of which the buyer was ignorant, or merely give an
opinion or judgment upon a matter of which the buyer
could as weU judge as the vendor?" ' An implied war-
' Benj. Sales CEd. 1888), p. 563: Tiede. Sales, § 180; Foster v. Smith,
18 C. B., 156; Mondell v. Steele, 8 M. & W., 858; Hopkins v. Tanque-
ray, 15 C. B., 130; 23 L. J. C. P., 162 ; McFarland v. Newman, 9
Watts, 55.
' Bryant v. Crosby, 40 Me., 9; James v. Bocage, 45 Ark., 284; Bloss
v.- Kittridge, 5 Vt., 28; Summers v. Vaughn, 35 Ind., 323; Morehouse
V. Comstock, 42 Wis., 624; Hogins v. Plympton, 11 Pick., 99.
" Pasley v. Freeman, 3 T. E., 51; Cross v. Gardner, Garth., 90;
Medina v. Stoughton, 1 Ld. Raym., 593; Powell v. Barham, 4 A. &
§ 108,J SALES BY SAMPLE. 183
ranty is one deduced by the law when the execution of
the c'ontract, and the evidence, justify or demand it. As
a rule, the existence of an express warranty excludes an
implied one; but from the operation of this rule are
excepted cases where the former relates to quality, and
the latter to title, in which oases the co-existence of
both in the same contract involves no inconsistency.
It is the well established doctrine in this country, that
in the sale by a vendor, as his own, of an article in his
possession, there is an implied warranty of title; but
otherwise when the property is not in his possession at
the time of the sale. '
As a general rule, there is no implied warranty of
quality in the sale of personal property, where the buyer
has an opportunity to inspect the goods and determine
the quality for himself. In the absence of fraud, and of
an express warranty, each of the parties relying upon his
own judgment, the maxim caveat emptor applies." But
to the general rule there are some exceptions.
1. Sales hy sample. — In a sale by sample, intended by
E.. 473; Hahn v. Doolittle, 18 Wis., 196; Marsh v. Webber, 13 Minn.,
109; Tewksbury v. Bennett, 31 la., 83; Gifford v. Carvill, 39 Cal., 589;
MiUer v. Young, 33 m., 354.
" Bishop Cent. (Bnl. Ed.), § 243; 3 Kent. Com. p. 478; Williamson
V. Sammons, 34 Ala., 691; Linton v. Porter, 31 lU., 107; Chancellor
V. Wiggins, 4 B. Monr., 201; Sherman v. Champlatn Transp. Co., 31
Vt., 163; Fawcett v. Osbom, 83 111., 411; Word v. Cavin, 1 Head, 506;
Lackey v. Stouder, 2 Ind., 876; Scranton v. Qark. 89 N. Y., 230;
Huntington V. Hall, 86 Me., 501; Tiede. Sales, § 185; Benj. Sales (Ed.
1888), p. 564, et seq.; Am. n., p. 614. et seq.
' Tiede. Sales, § 187; Benj. Sales ffid. 1888), p. 644, et seq. ; Bishop Cont.
(Enl. Ed.), § 244; 2 Kent Com., p. 478, et seq.; 2 Sch. Pers. Prop., p.
853.
184 SALES, ETC. [ § 108.
the parties as such, there is an implied warranty that the
bulk of the goods shall be equal to the sample. '
2. Sales ly description. — ^Where the buyer has no
opporiunity to inspect the goods, either in bulk or sample,
and the vendor's description is positive, definite and
exact, there is an implied warranty that the goods will
answer the description, both in kiud and quality.'
3. MercJiantability j fitness for a particular use. —
In a sale by a manufacturer, there is an implied war-
ranty that the goods are merchantable, such as are free
from serious defects, and wiU command the ordinary
market price. And where goods are bought for a par-
ticular purpose or use, known to the vendor, and are
selected by him, the buyer not relying on his own judg-
ment, there is an implied warranty that the articles shall
be fit for such purpose or use. '
4. Sales of ^provisions. — In the United States it is held,
that in a sale of provisions for immediate domestic con-
sumption, there is an implied warranty that the articles
' Merriman V. Chapman, 32 Conn., 146; Webster v. Granger, 78 111.,
230; Gill v. Kauflfman, 16 Kan., 571; Gunther v. Atwell, 19 Md., 157;
Gallagher v. "Waring, 90 Wend., 20; Barnard v. "Kellogg, 10 Wall.,
883.
' Hastings v. Levering, 2 Pick., 315; Hogins v. Plympton, 11 Pick.,
97; Behn v. Bumess, 8 Best & Smith, 751; Wolcott v. Mount, 36 N. J.
L., 263; Maxwell v. Lee, 37 N. W. Rep., 196.
" Howard v. Hoey, 23 Wend., 350; Gallagher v. Waring, 9 Wend.,
30, 38; Merriam v. Field, 24 Wis., 640; McOhing v. Kelley, 31 Iowa,
508; Mesner v. Granger, 4 Gilm., 69; CuUen v. Bimm, 37 Ohio St..
336; Wilcox v. Hall, 53 Ga., 635; Brantley v. Thomas, 23 Tex., 270;
Deeming v. Foster, 42 N. H., 165; Walker v. Pue, 57 Md., 155; Port
Carbon Iron Co. v. Groves, 68 Pa. St., 149; TUton Safe Co. v. Tis-
dale, 48Vt.,83.
§ 109. J PEEFOEMANCE OF CONTEAOT. 185
are ^sound, wholesome, and fit for food.' But where
provisions are sold as merchandise and not for immediate
consumption by the purchaser, there is no implied war-
ranty of fitness for use."
5. Sale of commercial paper. — In the sale of commer-
cial paper there is an implied warranty by the vendor
that the. signatures are genuine, and the signers compe-
tent to contract ; but the warranty does not extend to
the pecuniary responsibility or solvency of the signers.'
It may be regarded as an established doctrine, that an
express general warranty does not cover patent defects ;
that where such defects exist the buyer must exact a
special warranty against them, or submit to the applica-
tion of the rule, caveat emptor.*
§ 109. Delivery in performance of the contract
Delivery as related to the transfer of title has already
been considered,' and it remains to notice briefly the
rules governing delivery of possession in performance of
the executory contract of sale. When the contract is
complete, and the buyer has complied, or is ready to
comply, with the conditions precedent or concurrent, it
becomes the immediate duty of the vendor to deliver
' Morehouse v. Cotnstock, 43 Wis., 636; Hoover v. Peters, 13 Mich.,
51; Van BracJilin v. Fonda, 13 Johns., 468; Divine v. McCormick, 50
Barb ,116.
' Moses V. Meed, 5 Denio, 617; 1 Denio, 378; Howard t. Emerson,
110 Mass , 321; Eyder v. Neitge, 21 Minn., 70; Humphreys v. Corn-
line, 8 Blatchf., 516; Lukens v. Freiund, 37 Kan., 664.
» Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), Am. n., pp. 630, 631; 1 Dan. Neg. Inst.,
§670.
* Tiede. Sales, § 195; "Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), pp. 567-569.
» Supra, § 103.
186 DELITEET. [ § 109.
possession of the goods in performance of the contract,
in the absence of stipulations to the contrary.
1. Eow, cmd where, delivery to ie made. — In the
absence of an express agreement in respect to dehvery,
the vendor is under no obhgation to transport the goods
to the purchaser. He is only required to hold the goods
ready for delivery to the buyer, or his order, on demand.
And if the vendee fails to call for the goods, and they
remain in the possession of the vendor, he may recover
the price in an action for goods bargained and sold."
"When the parties have not agreed upon a place of deliv-
ery, the goods must be held ready for delivery at the
place where they were at the time of the sale; and
should the vendor attempt to deliver them elsewhere he
would incur all the attendant risk, and be liable to the
vendee for the increased expense, if any, arising from
such unauthorized delivery."
Obviously, if a place of delivery be designated by the
parties, or either of them thereto authorized by the
contract, it cannot rightfully be made elsewhere, without
the consent of all the parties. If the buyer is to desig-
nate the place, and he neglects to do so within a reason-
able time, it will excuse the vendor from making delivery,
and enable him to maintain an action for the purchase
' Kohl V. Lindley. 89 III., 195; Morse v. Sherman, 106 Mass., 430,
433; Wadev. Moffit, 31 111., 110; 74 Am. Dec, 79; Frazier v. Sim-
mons, 139 Mass., 531, 535; Turner v. Langdon, 112 Mass., 265;
Stearns v. Washburn, 7 Gray, 187; Allingham v. O'Mahoney, 1
Pugsl., 326.
' Eice V. Churchill, 2 Den., 145; Brownson v. Gleason, 7 Barb., 472;
Middlesex Co. v. Osgood, 4 Gray, 429; Barr v. Ayers, 3 Watts & S.,
299; Kraft v. Hurtz, 11 Mo., 109; Miles v. Roberta, 34 N. H., 253 ; S
Sch. Pars. Prop., p. 400.
§ 109.J DELIVEET. 187
price while the goods remain in his possession." If the
vendor is to select the place of delivery, it becomes his
duty to give the vendee reasonable notice in advance of
the place selected, so that delivery there will transfer the
possession of the goods to the latter."
2. Delivery to a common carrier. — Where the contract
binds the vendor to send the goods to the purchaser,
delivery to a common carrier is a compliance, it being in
contemplation of law a delivery to the purchaser himself.
The carrier, in such cases, is the bailee of the purchaser,
or consignee.' But where the contract requires the seller
to make the common carrier his own agent, or he does so
voluntarily, transfer of possession and risk from the ven-
dor to the Vendee wiU not take place, until the goods
have been actually delivered by the^oarrier to the vendee
or his agent.'
3. Quantity to le delivered. — A contract for a specific
quantity will not be satisfied by a tender or delivery of
more or less; or by sending the goods bargained for
mixed with other goods, thus compelling the buyer to
select and separate for himself. In either case the pur-
chaser may rightfully refuse to accept the whole. '
4. Time of delvvery. — In the absence of a stipulated
time for delivery, the law prescribes a reasonable time ;
> Hunter v. Westell, 84 N. Y., 594 ; 88 Am. Rep., 544; Smith v.
Wheeler, 5 Gray, 309; Boyd v. Gumiison, 14 W. Va., 1 ; Brunshill v.
Muir, 15 Up Can. Q. B., 313; Bolton v. Riddle, 85 Mich., 13.
•Rogers V. Van Hoesen, 12 Johns,, 281; Davies v. McLean, 21 W.
R.,264; 28 L. T. (N. S.), 113.
» Tiede. Sales, § 95; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), pp. 146, 647.
* Citations last sitpro; and see Dunlop v, Lambert, 6 Clark & F.,
600; Perkins v. Eckert, 55 Cal., 400; Hall v. Gaylor, 87 Conn., 650.
« Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 642, et seq.; Tiede. Sales, § 101.
188 DELIVERY. [ § 109.
and what is a reasonable time becomes a question of fact
for the jury, to be determined by the circumstances of
■each case.' "Where the contract expresses the time of
delivery, the question involved is one of construction,
and hence a question of law for the court, and not of fact
for the jury."
5. Actual, constructive, and symbolical delwery . — An
actual delivery is the "manual or bodily transfer of
possession." Constructive delivery is the intentional
transfer of title and possession in place of actual, by
agreement of the parties, or where actual delivery is
impossible. As examples of constructive delivery may
be mentioned cases where the goods are in the actual
possession of the vendee at the time of the sale ; where
it is the intention of the parties that the goods shall
remain in the possession of the vendor as bailee after the
sale ; where the goods are in possession of a warehouse-
man, or other third party, at the time of the sale, and
he thereafter holds them as bailee of the 'purchaser;
where the goods are at sea, or otherwise beyond the
power of the vendor to make actual delivery ; where the
goods are too ponderous for possible or convenient actuaj^
dehvery ; and where the subject of the sale is growing
crops, not ripe for actual delivery. Symbolical delivery
is the actual delivery of something as the representative
or symbol of the property sold, as the key of the ware-
house where the goods are stored ; the bill of sale of a
' 2 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 401, et seg. ; Tiede. Sales, gg 98-100; TerwU-
Uger V. Knapp, 2 E. D. Sm., 86.
» Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 638; Atwood v. Clark, 2 Me., 249; Cam-
eron V. WeUs, 30 Vt., 633.
§ 110. J vendoe's lien. 18&
vessel and cargo at sea ; and, indeed, in all oases of im-
possible or impracticable delivery. '
6. Acceptance. — It is only necessary in this connection
to add, that acceptance is the complement of delivery,
both being essential to a full performance of the contract.
This subject was briefly discussed under the requirements
of the Statute of Frauds.' The rules there stated will
apply to acceptance in performance of the contract, and
need not be repeated. But the reader, desiring a more
elaborate discussion of the subject, is referred to the
authorities hereunder cited.*
§ 110. The vendor's lien. — A lien is a "right to
hold goods, the property of another, in security for some
debt, duty, or other obligation. ' ' ' The vendor of per-
sonal property, still in his possession, has a lien upon it
as security for the purchase price. ' But this lien may be
waived or lost, either expressly or by implication. A
sale on credit is a waiver. The receipt of other security
for the payment of the purchase price is a waiver by impli-
cation. Delivery of the goods is a waiver. A legal
tender of payment by the vendee discharges the lien.
And, in short, any agreement, or dealing with the goods,
' Tiede. Sales, §§ 104, 105; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 648; 8 Kent
Com., p. 500; 1 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), p. 531; 3 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 408,
et seq.
» Supra, § 102, sub. 5.
» Tiede. Sales, ch IX; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), pp. 663-667.
* Arnold v. Delano, 4 Cush. , 33, 38.
' Tiede. Sales, § 119; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p 750, et seq. ; Am. n. , p.
773, et seq.; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop, 483, et seq.; 2 Id., p. 579, etseq ; Bouv.
L. Diet., "lien;" And. L. Diet., "Lien."
190 STOPPAGE IN TEANSITU. [ § 111.
inconsistent with the retention of the lien, will operate
as a waiver.'
§ 111. Stoppage in transitn. — Where the vendor has
parted with the possession of goods sold before payment
of the purchase price, and placed them in the hands of
a carrier, or other middlenian, for delivery to the buyer,
if, while- the goods are in transitu, he discovers that the
vendee has become insolvent since the sale, or, unbe-
known to him, was insolvent at the time of the sale,
he may retake and hold the goods as security for the
price." " This is a right," it is well said, "which arises
solely upon the insolvency of the buyer, and is based
on the plain reason of justice and equity that one man's
goods shall not be applied to the payment of another
man's debt."*
While the right of stoppage in transitu, and the ven-
dor's lien, are nearly related in spirit and purpose, there
is a distinction between them which is not always
observed, leading to some confusion and apparent con-
flict in the cases. We have seen ' that the vendor of
personal property, still in his possession, has a lien upon
it as security for the price ; but that in a sale on credit
no hen attaches, or, as it is sometimes expressed, the lien
is waived by imphcation. The right of stoppage in tra/n-
' Tiede. Sales, §§ 120-133; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 751, etseq.; Am.
n.,p. 774.
' Benj. Sales, p. 778, et seq.; Am. n., p. 817, et seq.; Tiede. Sales,
§ 135, et seq.; 3 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 586, et seq.; 3 Kent Com., p. 540,
et seq.; Gibson v. Carruthers, 8 M. & W., 337.
• D'Aquila v. Lambert, 3 Eden, at p. 77; s. c, Amb., 399.
* Supra, § 110.
§ lll.j STOPPAGE nr TEANSITU. 191
situ, on the contrary, is not affected by the^ credit, and
may be exercised before payment falls due.'
The theory or principle on which the right of stoppage
in transitu depends, and the effect of its exercise, have
given rise to considerable discussion, and some contra-
riety of opinion. On one theory, there is a constructive
possession in the seller for the purpose of a lien, which is
enforced by the stoppage ; on another, the vendor has a
right to rescind the contract in case of insolvency, which
right may be exercised by stoppage in transitu. The
lien theory is favored by the weight of American author-
ity, which seems to establish the doctrine that the exer-
cise of the right of stoppage does not operate as a
rescission of the contract of sale ; and that the vendee is
afterwards entitled to the possession of the goods on
payment or tender of the purchase price ; and this not-
withstanding the goods may have greatly appreciated in
value.'
Chief J. Shaw, in Arnold v. Delam,o' speaking of the
waiver of vendor's lien by the giving of credit, says :
"But the law in holding that a vendor, who has thus
' Stubbs V. Lund, 7 Mass., 453, 456; Clapp t. Peck, 55 la., 2170;
Clapp V. Sohmer, 55 la., 273; Babcock v. BonneU, 80 N. Y., 244, 249;
BeU V. Moss, 5 Wheat, 189; Atkins v. Colby, 20 N. H., 154; NewhaU
V. Vargas, 13 Me., 193.
» Babcock V. BonneU, SON. Y., 244, 250, 251; Jordan v. James, 5
Ohio, 88; Rowley v. Bigelow, 12 Pick., 312; Patten's Appeal, 45 Pa.
St., 151; Kemp. v. Falk, 7 App. Cas., 573, 581; Newhall v. Vargas, 13
Me., 93; Rogers v. Thomas, 20 Conn , 53; Rucker v. Donovan, 13
Kan., 251; Stanton V. Eager, 10 Pick., 475; Wart v. Scott, 6 Grant,
(Ont ) 154; Grout v. Hill, 4 Gray, 361; Chandler v. FuUer, 10 Tex., 2;
McEIroy v. Seerey, 61 Md., 389; 48 Am. Rep., 110.
" 4 Cush., 33, 38-41.
192 STOPPAGE IN TBANSITU. [ § 111.
given credit for goods, waives his lien for the price, does
so on one implied condition, which is, that the vendee
shaU keep his credit good. If, therefore, before pay-
ment, the vendee become bankrupt or insolvent, and the
vendor stiU. retains the custody of the goods, or any part
of them, or if the goods are in the hands of a carrier, or
middleman, on their way to the'vendee, and have not yet
got into his actual possession, and the vendor, before
thfey do, can regain his actual possession, by a stoppage
m transitu, then his lien is restored and he may hold the
goods as security for the price. ' '
The right of stoppage, being considered just and equit-
able, is extended to others than vendors, to persons occu-
pying a similar position, quasi vendors. For examples,
a factor or commission merchant, who buys for the con-
signee;' to one who pays the price for the vendee, and
takes the bill of lading in his own name, or has it
assigned to him;" and the vendor of an interest in an
executory agreement.'
"When does the transit begin, and when does it end ?
Answering generally, it begins when the vendor parts
with the possession fully, so that his right of lien is gone ;
and ends when the goods reach the actual possession of
the vendee, or his authorized agent. The statement
often found in the books that the transit terminates when
the goods reach their ultimate destination is liable to
> Newhall v. Vargas, 13 Me., 93; Seymour v. Newton, 105 Mass.^
275; Ilsley v. Stubbs, 9 Mass., 65, 71; Ex parte Miles, 15 Q. B.
Div., 39.
» Muller V. Poudir, 65 N. Y., 325, 337; Gossler v. Schepeler, 5 Daly,
476.
» Jenkyns v. TJsborne, 7 M. & G., 678, 698; 8 Scott, N. R., 505.
§ 11 2. J PAYMENT AND TENUEE. 193
mislead, and is not accurate if the expression "ultimate
destination " be used in the sense of locality, and not
the actual possession of the vendee. The goods may
have reached the place of consignment, and still be in
transit to the vendee while in the hands of a wharfinger,
warehouseman, cartman, or other middleman.'
§ 112. Payment and tender. — On compliance vrith
the contract of sale by the vendor, he is entitled to pay-
ment according to its terms, express or implied. Where
no stipulation is made by the parties in regard to the
mode, or time, of payment, an immediate and absolute
payment in cash is implied by law, and obligatory upon
the vendee. But the contract may provide for other
kinds of payment, or a credit may be given for a stipu-
lated time. When payment becomes due, the debtor
cannot safely wait for demand to be made, but must seek
the vendor or his authorized agent, and make, or tender
payment."
Other than money payments :
1. Payment iy note or hill. — A payment by bill or
note may be absolute or conditional. It is generally held
that the debtor's own note or bill given in liquidation of
his debt, is a conditional payment, and will not effect an
absolute discharge of the debt until itself is paid ; unless
it be taken by agreement of the parties as an absolute
payment. The indebtedness of the buyer in itself gives
the vendor an implied promise of payment, and a
' Tiede. Sales, §§ 139-133; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 784, et seq., Am.
n., pp. 830-835; 3 Sch, Pers. Prop., p. 590, et seq.; Harris v. Pratt, 17
N. Y., 349.
' 3 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 435; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), pp. 669, 670.
13
194: PAYMENT AND TENDEE. [§112
promissory note only supplements the implied, unwritten,
with an express, written, promise; it does not increase
the obligation of the buyer, or add to the security of the
vendor ; but the latter is at liberty to accept the written
promise as an absolute payment and discharge of the
debt, if he will. The transfer to the vendor by the pur-
chaser of a npte or bill of a third party is in some cases
an absolute, and in others only a conditional, payment.
If payable to bearer, and transferred at the time of the
sale without indorsement, it is prima facie an absolute
payment; but if payable to order and transferred by
indorsement, it will operate only as conditional payment
unless otherwise agreed by the parties: In some of the
States, the transfer of a negotiable biU or note by a
debtor to his creditor for a precedent simple contract
debt, is deemed, jprirna facie, an absolute payment or
discharge of the debt ; but in a majority of the States
such a transfer is held to be only a conditional payment
in the absence of proof of a different agreement by the
'parties. '
As a rule, the acceptance of a bill or note conditionally
in payment of a debt, suspends the right of action on the
original debt until maturity of the paper." On maturity
the right of action revives ; and it is then optional with
the creditor to bring his action on the paper, or on the
' Tiede. Sales, § 144; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), Am. n., pp. 699, 700,
where the holdings of the several States on this point are collated.
' Stedman v. Gooch, 1 Bsp., 3; Griffith v. Cowen, 13 M. & W., 58;
Black V. Zacharie, 3 How., 483; Putnam v. Lewis, 8 Johns., 389;
Price V. Price, 16 M. & W., 231; Armstead v. Ward, 2 Pat. & H., 504;
Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Allen, 11 Mich., 501.
§112.] PAYMENT BT CHECK OE DEAFT. 196
original debt. ' Should he elect the latter alternative, he
must produce in court and surrender the paper, or so
account for its absence as to show that the debtor wiU
be free from liability upon it to a third party,*
If the debtor becomes liable on the bill or note as a
drawer or indorser, failure of the holder to exercise due
diligence in presenting the same for payment, and giving
notice of dishonor, will, it is generally held, discharge the
debtor both from his liabihty on the dishonored paper,
and on the original debt, where snch negligence results
in loss.'
2. Payment ly cheoh or draft. — The authorities are
not entirely agreed upon the effect of payment by check
or draft. Some hold that the buyer's negotiable check
1?, prima facie payment, conditionally; and if the drawer
has no funds in the drawee's hands to meet the check, or
draws them out before the holder has a reasonable time
to present the check, it will not operate as a payment,
and the creditor may resort to his original cause (A
action.* But if, at the time of giving the check, the
drawer has suJHcient funds in the hands of the drawee,
and the payee neglects for an unreasonable time to pre-
' Bank of Ohio Valley v. Lockwood, 13 W. Va., 426; Owenson v
Morse, 7 T. R., 50; Steadman v. Gooch, 1 Esp., 4; Price v. Price, 16 M.
& W., 231; Tobey v. Barber, 5 Johns., 68.
» Jones V. Savage, 6 Wend., 658; Dayton v. Trull, 23 Wend., 345;
Raymond v. Merchant, 3 Cow., 147, 150; Alcock v. Hopkins, 6 Gush.,
484; MUler v. Lumsden, 16 111., 161; Matthews v. Dare, 20 Md., 248.
s Smith V. MiUer, 43 N. Y., 171; s. c, 52 N. Y., 546; Betterton v.
Koope, 3 Lee (Tenn.), 220; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Allen, 11 Mich , 501;
Mehlbery v. Fisher, 24 Wis., 607; Allan v. Eldred, 50 Wis., IgS;
Dayton v. TruU, 23 Wend., 345.
* Broughton v. SDloway, 114 Mass., 71.
196 PAYMENT IN COUNTEEFEIT, ETC. [§112.
sent the check, and the drawee in the meantime fails,
the loss falls upon the creditor ; he becomes the victim of
his own negligence, and cannot maintain an action on
the original indebtedness.' Other cases hold that the
creditor may recover on the original cause of action,
unless the debtor shows that the check has been paid, or
or that a loss has resulted from an unreasonable delay of
the creditor in presenting the check for payment."
3. Payment in cownterfeit^ or worthless Mils. — Coun-
terfeit or forged billSj bank notes, or personal notes,
given in payment, do not constitute payment, or dis-
charge the debt. The creditor ia such case, gets no
value, no quid pro quo. Some cases hold that the
receiver of counterfeit or forged paper is bound to use due
diligence in ascertaining its character, and to promptly
return the same, or notify the other party of its charac-
ter ; and that failing in this regard, its receipt by him will
be deemed a valid payment. The necessity or utility of
returning an utterly worthless piece of paper, or of noti-
fying the other party of its character, is not obvious on
first thought ; but in some cases, an early notice might
enable an innocent party to obtain redress from prior
parties.'
' Cushman v. libbey, 15 Gray, 358; Taylor v. "WUson, 11 Met., 44;
Hodgson V. Barrett, 33 Ohio St., 63; Barnard v. Graves, 16 Pick., 41;
Warriner v. The People, 74 lU., 346; Mclntyre v. Kennedy, 39 Pa. St.,
448.
« Bradford v. Fox, 38 N. Y., 389; Smith v. MiUer, 43 N. Y., 171;
Thompson V. The Bank of British N. A., 83 N. Y., 1; Kerneyer v.
Newbt, 14 Kan., 164; Phillips v. Bollard, 58 Ga., 356; DeGampart v.
Brown, 38 Ark., 166.
» Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), Am. n., pp. 697, 698, anff cases cited; Tiede.
Bales, S 149; 3 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), p. 632.
§ 112.] APPEOPEIATION OF PAYMENTS. 197
4. Payment in specific articles. — By agreement of the
pai'ties, the price may be payable in specific articles.
It is only necessary to say, that when so payable, the
articles must be delivered in accordance with the terms
of the contract, and in default thereof the price becomes
payable in cash.'
5. Payment ly mail. — ^Where the creditor authorizes
or requests payment by mail, or other specific mode, he
thereby appoints his own agency for the transmission of
the funds, and assumes aU the risk attendant upon such
mode of remittance. The obligation of the debtor wiU
be fully discharged by sending the money as authorized
or requested, even although it may never reach the cred-
itor. ■■ But money sent by mail without authority of the
creditor, or the sanction of any general usage or custom,
is at the risk of the debtor, and if not received by the
creditor, the debt remains uncanceled.' It has been held,
however, that depositing the money in the postofBce, in
an envelope properly addressed to the creditor at his
place of business, is prima facie evidence that he
received it.*
6. Appropriation of payments. — Questions in regard
' Perry v. Smith, 23 Vt., 801; Roberts v. Beatty, 2 Pen. & Watts,
63; Church v. Feterow, 2 Pen. «& Watts, 301; Stone v. Nichols, 43
Mich., 16.
' Gumey v. Howe, 9 Gray, 404; Morgan v. Richardson, 13 Allen,
410; Palmer v. Phoenix Mut. Ins. Co., 84 N. Y., 63; Townsend v.
Henry' 9 Rich. L., 318.
• Crane t. Pratt, 13 Gray; 348; First Nat. Bank v. McManigle, 69
Pa. St., 156; BueU v. Chapin, 99 Mass., 596; WiUiams v. Carpenter,
36 Ala.^! 9; Holland v. Lyns, 56 Ga., 56.
< Huntley v. Whittier, 105 Mass., 391; Waydell v. Velie, 1 Bradf.,
377.
198 PAYMENT ON SUNDAY. [§ 112.
to the appropriation of payments arise where several
debts are due from one person to another, and a payment
is made which is insuflBcient to satisfy all. The general
rules governing such cases may be briefly summarized.
1. The debtor, at the time of payment, has the right
to designate the claim to which it shall apply. This
done, and the appropriation so made by the creditor, it
cannot afterwards be changed by the debtor, and will
not be changed for him by the law.-
2. If the debtor fails to make the application where
he has the opportunity of so doing, the creditor may
apply the payment to any one of several legal claims at
his option. He may apply it to a claim barred by the
statute of limitations, but such appropriation will not
revive the balance of the debt, if any ; to a debt against
the payer and others ; to an unsecured debt in preference
to one secured ; and to a debt not enforceable by reason
of the Statute of Frauds. But he is not at liberty to
apply it to an illegal claim ; nor to a debt absolutely void
for usury; nor to a debt not yet due, if there be
suflBcient indebtedness due to absorb the payment.
3. If neither debtor nor creditor make the application,
the law win apply the payment as justice and equity
require, and in accordance with the probable intention of
the parties."
7. Payment on Svm,dm/. — A payment made and
received on Sunday, if retained by the creditor, wUl dis-
charge the debt.' But such payment is not as effectual
' Benj. Sales (Ed 1888), Am. note, pp. 704, 705; Tiede. Sales, § 152;
2 Whart. Cont. §§ 933-934; 2 Para. Cont. (7 Ed!), p. 630, et seq.
•Johnson v. Willis, 7 Gray, 164; Lamore v. Frisbie, 42 Mich.; 186.
§ 112.J TENDEE. 199
for all purposes as a payment on a week day. For
example, a partial payment on Sunday will not revive a
debt barred by the Statute of Limitations. '
8. Tender. — ^While nothing but payment, or its equiv-
alent accepted by the vendor, will discharge the buyer's
indebtedness for the price, a valid tender will relieve him
from liability for costs, and for subsequently accruing
interest. The requirements of such a tender are :
First. — It must be made in gold or silver coin, or
United States treasury notes. But if the tender be made
of bank notes which commonly pass current as money,
and no objection be made by the vendor to the money
tendered, it will be sufficient.
Second. — The full amount due must be tendered; a
tender of a part, if refused by the vendor, will not suf-
fice. An exception to this rule, however, occurs where
the vendor alone knows the exact amount due, and
declines to inform the buyer, in which case the latter may
tender a reasonable sum in payment, and an inconsider-
able deficiency will not render it invalid.
Third. — As, a rule, the money must be actually pro-
duced and offered to the vendor or his authorized agent,
in such a manner that the person to whom the tender is
made may have an opportunity to examine and count it
for himself. But its production may be waived by the
person to whom the tender is made, or rendered imprac-
ticable by his refusal to examine or accept it ; and in such
' Wainnaman v. Keinman, 1 Exch., 118; Clapp v. Hale, 112 Mass.,
868; Bumgardner v. Taylor, 38 Ala., 687; Dennis v. Sharman, 31 Ga.,
607. But see Thomas v. Hunter, 39 Md., 413; and Ayers v. Bane, 39
Iowa, 518, differing as to admission of debt by a Sunday payment.
200 EEMEDIES OF THE TENDOE. [ § ll^i.
case if the buyer, or his authorized agent, has the right
amount of legal tender present, and offers to produce it
for examination and acceptance, the tender will be suf-
ficient and legal.
Fourth. — The tender must be unconditional. It is a
well settled rule that a tender with conditions imposed,
as that the debtor shall receive a release or a receipt in
full, or the like, is not good. But it has been held that
where a statute makes it obligatory upon the debtor to
give a release, it may properly be demanded where the
tender is made;' and a note may be demanded as the con-
dition of a tender of its payment.
Fifth. — The tender must be kept good. If it be prop-
erly made, and acceptance be refused, the debtor must
thereafter have the money in readiness for the creaditor on
his demand ; otherwise the original tender would be insuf-
ficient. And if suit be subsequently brought upon the
claim for which the tender was made, the money must be
brought into court for the use of the plaintiff.'
§ 113. Kemedies of the vendor. — ^A vendor of per-
sonal property has several remedies for securing the pur-
chase price, or for breach of the contract, each adapted
to circumstances.
1. Vendor^s lien. — As we have seen, he may have a
lien for the purchase price upon goods sold, while they
remain in his possession. It is only, however, where the
' Saunders v. Frost, 5 Pick,, 270; Balme v. Wambaugh, 16 Minn.,
116.
' Tiede Sales, § 140; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), Am. note, pp. 706-708; 2
Pars. Cent., pp. 637, et seq., and 647, et seq.; 2 Sch. Pers. Prop. pp.
428-432; Bouv. L. Diet., "Tender," And. L. Diet., "Tender."
§ 113.] EE-SALB. 201
property in. the goods has passed to the vendee that his
lien attaches, for, obYiously, one cannot have a lien on
his own property.' The lien, it should be noted, is only
good as securitj'^ for the unpaid price, and will not hold
for any other claim, whether one growing out of the
same transaction, or otherwise.'
2. Re-sale. — The vendor may re-sell the goods in the
case of non-acceptance by the vendee, and hold the latter
liable for any difference between the contract price and
the sum realized on the re-sale. This right may be exer-
cised within a reasonable time after the buyer's default.
The vendor should notify the. buyer that he will sell
the goods for the account of the buyer, and hold the
latter liable for the difference between the contract price
and the re-sale price ; and, while not absolutely essential
to the right of re-sale, it is -prudent for the vendor to
give notice to the buyer of the time and place of the
intended sale, thus forestalling a'charge of unfairness in
the transaction,* "Where the vendor elects to re-sell on
' Sitpm, § 110. And see Tiede. Sales, 119; Benj. Sales (Ed.
p. 730, Am. n., p. 773; 3Sch. Pers Prop., p. 556, e,t seq.; Clark v. Dra-
per, 19 N. H., 419; Arnold v. Delano, 7 Cush., 33; Bowen v. Burk, 18
Pa. St., 146; Carlisle v. Kinney, 66 Barb., 368; Bradley v. Michael, 1
Ind., 551.
■> Crommelin v. N. Y.,& Harlem R. R. Co., 4 Keyes, 90; Somes v.
British Empire Shipping Co., 1 E. B, &E., 367; L. J. Q. B., 330; 8 H,
L. C, 338; SOL. J. Q. B., 331.
3 Tiede. Sales, § 334; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 787, et seq., Am. n.,
p. 747; Lewis v. Greider, 49 Barb., 606; Dustan v. McAndrew, 44 N.
y., 73; Mason v. Decker, 73 N. Y., 595, 599; Adams v. Mirick, 5 Serg.
& R , 33; Saladin v. Mitchell, 45 111,, 85; Barnett v. Terry; 43 Ga.,
283; Atwood v. Lucas, 53 Me., 508; Shawhaut v. VanWest, 35 Ohio
St., 490; HoUand v. Rea, 48 Mich,, 218; Smith v. Pettee, 70 N. Y., 13;
Camp V. Hamlin, 55 Ga., 359; Linden v. Eldren, 49 "Wis , 305; Rosen-
202 STOPPAGE IN TEANSITU, ETC. [ § 113.
default of acceptance by the vendee, and notifies tlie lat-
ter of his intention of so doing, the vendor becomes the
agent of the buyer for the purposes of such sale, and is
bound to the exercise of good faith and reasonable dih-
gence to eifect a sale at the best price ; and, it has been
held that the vendor is bouad to obey the instructions
given him by the vendee as to the time and manner of
sale, where he can do so without sacrificing his lien under
the contract. If the vendor neglects to give notice to
the buyer of the time and place of the re-sale, and there
be evidence_ of fraud or unfairness in the transaction, the
courts may adopt some other standard than the price
obtained as a test of the market value of the goods, in
determining the difference between it and the market
price. '
3. Stojppage in transitu. — Another remedy of the ven-
dor against the goods is stoppage in transitu. This rem-
edy has already been sufficiently considered, for the
purposes and plan of this treatise.'
4. Reclamation. — ^We have seen that where the vendee
purchases goods under false representations, or with an
intention not to pay for them, he does not acquire a good
title as against the defended vendor, who may reclaim
baum V. Weeden, 18 Gratt., 785; Smith v. Pettee, 70 N. Y., 13, 18;
Consinery v. Pearsall, 8 Jones & Sp., 114; Pickering v. Bardwell, 21
Wis., 562; Brownlee v. Bolton, 44 Mich., 218.
' Tiede. Sales, § 334;Girard v. Taggart,5 Serg. &E.,32;Chapman v.
Ingram, 30 Wis., 290; Bickeyv. Tenbroeck, 63 Mo., 587; Haskell v.
McHenry, 4 Cal., 411; McCombs v. MoKennan, 3 Watts & S., 219;
Coflfman v. Hampton, 3 Watts & S.^ 399.
« Supra, § 111.
§ 113.J ACTIONS. 203
the goods from the fraudulent vendee, or from any one
other than a honafide purchaser of such vendee.'
5. Action for refusal to recei/oe the goods. — Where the
property in the goods has not passed to the buyer, and
he wrongfully refuses to accept and pay for them accord-
ing to promise, the vendor may have an action against
the vendee, in which he will be entitled to recover the
actual damages sustained, but not the full purchase price
of the goods. The measure of damages generally gov-
erning in this action, is the difference between the con-
tract price and the market price of such goods at the
time when the contract was broken ; and the date of
breach is the time when the goods were to have been
delivered.'
6. Action for the price. — According to the weight of
American authority, when the vendor has complied with
the contract on his part he may regard the goods as the
property of the buyer, notwithstanding his refusal or
neglect to accept, and recover of him the full contract
price.' There are some authorities which are not in
' Supra, % 105, sub. 5.
' Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), pp. 708, 710, Am. n., p. 716. Tiede. Sales,
§333; Gibbons V. United States, 8"WaU., 269; Clement, etc., Co. v.
Meserole, 107 Mass.. 362; Band v. White Mountains E. R. Co., 40 N.
H., 79; Young V. Merton, 27 Md., 114; Harris Mfg. Co. v. Marsh, 49
Iowa, 11; Hayden v. Demets, 53 N. Y., 426; Danforth v. Walker, 37
Vt., 239; Nixon v. Nixon, 21 Ohio St., 114.
> Supra, § 109, sub. 1; Tiede. Sales, § 333; 3 Pars. Cent. (7 Ed.), p.
210; Mason v. Decker 72 N. Y., 595, 599; Bement v. Smith, 15 Wend.,
493; Doremus v. Howard, 23 N. J. L., 390; Bridgford v. Crocker, 60
N. Y., 627; Higgins v. Murray, 73 N. Y., 352; Nichojs v. Moore, 100
Mass., 277; Wade v. Moffet, 21 111., 110; Bell v. Offutt, 10 Bush, 639;
BaUentine v. Robinson, 46 Pa. St., 177,
204 EBMBDIES OF THE VENDEE. [§114.
harmony with the general trend of judicial opinion on
this point. '
7. It is hardly necessary to add that in case the goods
are delivered to, and accepted by, the vendee, and he
refuses or neglects to pay for them when payment is due,
the vendor may maintain an action against him for the
purchase price.
§ m. Eemedies of the vendee. — The vendee, as well
as the vendor, has several remedies for non-performance
or breach of the contract, each adapted to the particular
-circumstances of the case.
1 Action for non-delivery. — In case of failure by the
vendor to deliver the goods in pursuance, and according
to the terms, of his contract, the buyer has an action
against him for damages. When the price has not been
paid, the measure of damages will be the difference
between the contract price and the market value at the
time and place of dehvery.' The authorities do not agree
' Pittsburg, etc., R. E. Co. v. Heck, 50 Ind. , 303; Indianapolis, etc.,
R. R. Co. V. Maguire, 63 Ind., 140; Fell v. MuUer, 78 Ind., 507; Moody
v. Browe, 34 Me., 107.
« Tiede. Sales, § 385; Ben j. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 839, et seq., Am. n.
p. 859; Dana v. Fielder, 13 N. Y., 40; Parsons v. Sutton, 66 N. Y., 93;
Sleuter v. Wallbaum, 45 111., 44; Grand Tower Co. v. Phillips, 23
Wall., 471; Bush V. Holmes, 53 Me., 417; Somersv. Wright, 115 Mass.,
292; Miles v. Miller, 13 Bush, 134; Chadwick v. Butler, 28 Mich., 849;
Ouice V. Crenshaw, 60 Tex. 344; Gray v. Hall, 39 Kan. 704; Kribs v.
Jones, 44 Md., 396; Gordon v. Norris, 49 N. H., 376; Rose v. Bozeman,
41 Ala., 678; Worthen v. Wilmot, 30 Vt., 555; West v. Pritchard, 19
Conn., 215; Behner v. Dale, 25 Ind., 433; Cannon v. Folsom, 3 Iowa,
101; White V. Tompkins, 52 Pa. St., 3C3; Hill v. Chapman, 59 Wis.,
211; Porter v. Barrow, 3 La. An., 140; Crosby v. Watkins, 12 Cal., 85.
And see supra, § 103.
§ 114.] REMEDIES OF THE VENDEE. 205
as to the measure of damages where the contract price
has been paid. One class hold that the buyer is only-
entitled to receive the market price at the time and place
of delivery,' Other authorities hold that the measure of
damages is the highest market price of the goods between
the time of delivery and the commencement of the action. "
2. Special damages. — In some cases the' buyer is
entitled to special damages beyond the difference between
the market value and the contract price. While the
alleged loss of mere speculative profits constitutes no
ground for the recovery of damages, profits which would
naturally result from the possession of the goods bought,
and the reasonable expectation of which may have been
an inducement to the purchase, may be recovered as
special or consequential damages; and this especially
where the vendor knows the use for which the goods
were bought.*
• Cofleld V. Clark, 3 Cal., 102; Shepherd v. Hampton, 3 Wheat., 200;
Bear v. Hamish, 3 Brewst., 116; Balto. etc., Co., v. Sewell, 36 Md.,
238; Whitft v. Salisbury, 33 Mo., 150; HUl v. Smith, 32 Vt., 433; Rose
V. Bozeman, 41 Ala., 678; McKemiey v. Haines, 63 Me., 74; Smith v.
Dunlap, 13111., 184; Smithhurst v. Woolston, 5 "Watts & S., 106;
Humphreysville, etc., Co. v. Vermont etc., Co., 33 Vt., 92; Douglass v.
McAllister, 3 Cranch, 298.
s Clark V. Pinney, 7 Cow., 687; Arnold v. Suffolk Bank, 37 Barb.,
434; West v. Wentworth, 3 Cow., 83; Dabovich v. Emeric, 12 Cal., 171;
Cannon V. Folsom, 3 Iowa, 101; Wgst v. Pritchard, 19 Conn., 313;
Meyer v. Wheeler, 65 Iowa, 390; Kent v. Ginten, 33 Ind., 1; Randon
V. Barton, 4 Tex., 389; Gilman v. Andrews, 66 Iowa, 116; Maher v.
Riley, 17 Cal., 415.
» Tiede Sales, § 336; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 839, et seq., Am. n. p.
859, et seq. ; Royalton v. Royalton, etc., Co., 14 Vt., 311; Masterton v.
Mayor of Brooklyn, 7 Hill, 63; Cook v. Com'rs of Hamilton Co., 8
McLean, 613; Burrell v. N. Y. etc., Co., 14 Mich,, 34; Hubbard v.
Rowell, 51 Conn., 433; United States v. Behan, 110 U. S., 338; Nat.
206 • BEMEDIES OF THE VENDEE [ § 114.
3. Specific performance. — Cases of non-delivery some-
times occur in which an action at law will not afford the
buyer an adequate remedy ; and in such cases the court
of equity grants relief by compelling specific performance
of the contract by a delivery of the goods in accordance
with its terms. For the rules governing an action for
specific performance, the student and practitioner wU]
consult works on equity jurisprudence. '
4. Retnedies for ireach of warranty. — Receipt of the
goods by the vendee under an executory contract of sale,
does not bar his remedies for a breach of warranty.
There may be a breach of the warranty of title ; of the
quality of the goods ; in not delivering goods of the same
kind or quality as those bought ; in delivering goods that
do not correspond with the sample, where the sale is by
sample. In these cases the buyer has the choice of three
remedies : First, he may, except in the case of a specific
chattel in which the property has passed to hinj, refuse
to accept the goods, and return them, or give notice to
the vendor that he rejects them, and that they remain at
the seller's risk; second, he may accept the goods and
have his action for a breach of the warranty ; or, third,
if he has not paid the price, and is sued therefor by the
Filtering Oil Co. v. Citizens Ins Co., 106 N. Y., 535; Morrison v. Love-
joy, 6 Minn , 234; Passenger v. Thorburn, 34 N. Y., 634; White v. Mil-
ler, 7 Hun, 437; s. c. 71 N. Y., 118; s. c , 78 N. Y., 393; Flick v.
Weatherbee, 30 Wis.,392;Bellv. Reynolds, 78 Ala., 511; Shepard v.
Milwaukee Gas Light Co., 15 Wis., 318; Bartlett v. Blanchard, 13
Grjiy, 439; Adams Exp. Co. v. Egbert, 36 Pa. St., 360; Fessler v. Love,
48 Pa. St., 407; Richmond v. Dubuque, etc. R. R. Co., 40 Iowa, 364;
s. o. 43 Iowa, 433.
' Tiede. Sales, § 337; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 848, Am. n. p. 862.
§ 114.] KEMEDIES OF THE VENDEE. 207
Vendor, he may set up the breach of warranty as a
defense in recoupment, or as a counterclaim. '
In some of the States the courts hold, that in the
absence of fraud, of l^nowledge of the defect by the ven-
dor, or of an agreement to return, the mere breach of
warranty does not confer that right." There is a lack of
unanimity in the authorities on this point.
6. Mistake and failure of consideration. — If, by rea-
son of a mistake in regard to a material fact, the minds of
the parties fail to meet upou the subject matter, or terms
in an executory contract of sale, the vendee is excused
from its performance. If the mistake be not discovered
until after the execution of the contract, the vendee may
then rescind by placing the other party in statu quo, and
recover back what he has paid. And the same rule, sub-
stantially, applies in case of a failure of consideration.'
6. Illegal contracts of sale. — Before passing from the
subject of remedies, it should be stated that, according to
' Benj Sales, (Ed. 1888), p. 851, et seq., Am. n p 863, et seq.; Tie&e.
Sales, § 197; Hoadley V. House, 33 Vt, 179; Butler v. Northumber-
land, 50 N. H., 33; Magee v. BiUingsley, 3 Ala., 679; Voorhes v. Earl,
12 Hill, 288; Gates v. Bliss, 43 Vt., 299; Freyman v. Kneoh';, 78 Pa. St.,
141; Douglass Axe Co. v. Gardner, 10 Gush., 88; Perrin v. Terrell, 30
N. J. L. 454; Mandell v. Buttles, 21 Minn., 391; Northwood v. Eennic,
3 Ont. Ap., 87 (1878); KimbaUv. Vorman, 85 Mich., 310; MuUer v. Eno,
14 N. Y. 597; Day v. Pool, 52 N. Y., 416; Vincent v. Leland, 100 Mass.,
432.
' Lightburn v. Cooper, 1 Dana, 273; Voorhes v. Earl, 2 Hill, 288;
MuUer v. Eno, 14 N, Y , 597; Kase v. John, 10 Watts, 107; Walls v.
•Gates, 6 Mo. Ap., 242. See supra, §§ 105, 107, 108, in regard to fraud,
conditions and warranty
' Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p 346, et seq., Am. n. p. 356; Tiede. Sales, §
35; Bish. Cont. (Enl. Ed.), §g 693-714, 632; 2 Kent Com. p. 491. See
«tt/)ra, § 104
208 INDOKSEMENT. [§115.
the weight of American authority, the courts will not
grant relief to either party to an illegal contract of sale,
whether executory or executed ; and this upon the ground
of public policy. The vendor can retain the price if paid,
but if unpaid he cannot maintain an action for the value
of the goods. This just and wholesome rule is in accord-
ance with the common law maxim : Ew turpi causa non
oritur actio, which applies as well to a statement of
defense as to a statement of claim. Says Lord Mansfield, in
Montefiori V. Montefiori,'^ "no man shall set up his own
iniquity as a defense any more than as a cause of action.""
But English cases hold, that under an unlawful agree-
ment remaining executory, the party paying the price or
delivering the goods, may repudiate the transaction, and
recover back his money or goods. The action, it is said,
' 'is there founded, not upon the unlawful agreement, but
upon its disaffirmance.'" To the same effect is a recent
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.*
V, Indorsement.
§ 115. There are several kinds of instruments, choses
in action, which, contrary to our inherited common law,
are now held in this country to be negotiable ; the title
to, and property in which will pass from vendor to
vendee by indorsement and delivery, or delivery alone,
according to the tenor of the instrument. The principal
> Wm. Bl. 363.
' Tiede. Sales, § 393; Benj. Sales (Ed. 1888), p. 462, et seq., Am. n.
p. 497, et seq. And see supra, § 106.
» Taylor V. Bowers, IQ. B. D., 291, C. A.; Symons v. Hughes, 2
Eq., 475, 479.
* Spring Co. v. Knowlton, 13 Otto, 49.
§ 115.J INDORSEMENT. 209
instruments of this class are Bills of Exchange, Prom-
issory Notes, Coupon .Bonds, Checks, Certificates of
Deposit, Bank Notes, Certificates of Stock, Drafts, Bills
of Credit, Circular Notes, Bills of Lading, Guarantees,
and Letters of Credit.'
Bills of lading and certificates of stock, however, are
only quasi negotiable, but are generally classed -siwith
negotiable instruments.
Mr. Daniel, in his excellent treatise on Negotiable
Instruments, gives this definition of such an instrument :
' ' An instrument is called negotiable when the legal title
to the instrument itself, and to the whole amount of
money expressed upon its face, may be transferred from
one to another by indorsement and delivery by the holder,
or by delivery only. ' ' " When made payable to order,
title passes by indorsement and delivery ; and by delivery
without indorsement when payable to bearer in terms, or
legal effect.'
In order to constitute a sale and transfer of a nego-
tiable instrument, it must have a pre-existing vitality ;
otherwise there is nothing to sell or transfer.*
Negotiable instruments are referred to in this connec-
tion merely as examples of the acquisition of personal
property by indorsement. It is not within the scope of
' 1 Dan. Neg. Ints., pp. 1-3, 5-7, 28-31, 351, et seq., 660, et seq.; 3
Dan. Neg. Ints., pp. 443, et seq., 456, 458, 539, 533, 638, 641, 646, 647,
650, 651, 613, et seq.
« 1 Dan. Neg. Ints., p. 1.
" Edw. Bills, p. 263; 1 Dan. Neg. Inst., p. 93.
«Edw. Bills, p. 353; 1 Dan. Neg. Inst., pp. 603, 604; Powell v.
Waters, 8 Cow., 669; WUliams v. Storm, 3 Duer, 53; Eastman v,
Shaw, 65 N. Y., 533.
14
210 ASSIGNMENT. BAILMENT. [ §§ 116, 117.
this work to treat of such instruments, or the contract
and effect of indorsement, in other relations and branches
of the law.
YI. Assignment,
§ 116. Transfer by assignment is generally treated in
the books as a distinct method of acquiring title to per-
sonal property ; but in fact the term ' ' assignment ' ' is
very comprehensive, including every kind of transfer.
By use the term is appropriated to special transfers,
such as an assignment for the benefit of creditors ; transfer
of commercial paper not negotiable, and of such as is
negotiable without indorsement ; transfer of bonds ; and
transfers by a written instrument. But the term is not
confined to written transfers.'
VII. Bailment.
§ 117. Bailment, — from the French word lailler sig-
nifying to deliver, — ^is sometimes classed as a mode of
acquiring title to personal property, in the third division
now under treatment. Between this and the other modes
of acquiring title already considered, there is the impor-
tant distinction that in a bailment the special property
only, at the most, passes to the bailee, . the general or
absolute property remaining in the bailor, while in the
other modes of transfer the full title and absolute prop-
• Tiede Sales, § 13; 1 Dan. Neg. Inst., p. 585; 1 Bouv. L. Diet.
" Assignment;" Edw. Bills, p. 345; 2 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 673, et seq.;
Williams Pers. Prop., pp. 84-86, 117, 118; Bish. Cent. (Enl. Ed.),
§§ 1177-1189; Ball v. Chad wick, 46 111., 31; Cowles v. Eicketts, 1 Iowa,
683; Chase v. Walters, 38 Iowa, 460; Hight v. Sackett, 34 N. Y.. 447,
451; Perrins v. Little, 1 Green, 348; Potter v. Holland, 4 Blatchf., 210.
§ 117.J BAILMENT. 211
€rty, as a rule, pass to the transferee.' Generally, how-
ever, the bailee has a right to the possession for the pur-
poses of the bailment, and may protect it, and the thing
bailed, against everybody except the true owner." And
in some cases the bailee may have an action against the
true owner for a violation of the contract, or an infringe-
ment of the right of the former based upon his special
property in the thing bailed.'
The subject of bailments covers an important and
separate branch of the law, and its discussion is not in
place here, except in so far as it constitutes a mode of
acquiring a special property or possessory interest in per-
sonal property.
' Tiede. Sales, § 3; Story Bailm., §§ 93-96; Benj. Sales (Ed. ie88.>.
Am. n. p. 4; 2 Sch. Pars. Prop., p. 695, et seq.
= 2 Black. Com., p. 453; Story Bailm , § 93; Bouv. L. Diet., "Bail-
ment," sub. 5; Hurd v. West, 7 Cow., 753; White v. Basoom, 38 Vt.,
268; Chesley v. St. Clair, 1 N. H., 189; Bliss v. Sohaub, 48 Barb., 339.
> 2 Pars. Cont., pp. 136, 127; Hickok v. Buck, 22 Vt., 149j Benjamin
V. Stremple, 13 Dl., 466.
212 LLMITATIONS. [§118.
CHAPTEK X.
LIMITATIONS.
Section 118. History and purpose.
119. When the period of limitation begins to run.
130. New promise.
§ 118. History and pnrpose. — At common law, the
period of limitation for the commencement of actions
upon personal claims was twenty years ; and this is still
the law where the time has not been changed by statute. '
This limitation, it is thought, was based upon the pre-
sumption of payment after the lapse of so many years, a
presumption favored by the natural desire of honest
debtors to pay, and the general iaclination of creditors
to enforce payment within a reasonable time.' The com-
mon law limitation was changed by act of Parliament, 21
James I, c. 16, which prescribed the period of six years
for the commencement of certain actions therein named.
The provisions of this statute, and of the act of 9 George
rV, 0. 14, subsequently passed, have been quite generally
adopted in this country, and now prevail in substance in
most of our States ; there being, however, other statu-
tory provisions for special demands or debts.
The history of adjudications under these statutes in
England developes much apparent conflict of opinion ;
but this contrariety is largely due, it is believed, to dif-
ferent views in regard to the true theory or ground of
■ 3 Pa,r8. Cont. (7 Ed.), p. 61, et seq.; Bish. Cont. (Enl. Ed.), § 1351,
• See 3 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), at p. 61.
§ 118.] HISTOKT AND PUBPOSB. 213
limitation. One line of decisions is based upon the theory
of presumption of payment, as was the common law
limitation; the other upon the ground of impolicy in
suffering claims to lie unsettled for a long period of time,
and the danger of injustice in the enforcement of stale
demands. The question of difference was, and is, in
brief, whether statutes of limitation are statutes of pre-
sumption, or of repose. The two views lead to quite
different results, and account for the conflict of authority.
If the lapse of time simply raises a presumption of pay-
ment, it is neutralized by whatever will rebut the pre-
sumption ; and anything will have this effect which im-
plies, or amounts to an acknowledgment, that the debt
has not been paid or satisfied. As to what acknowledg-
ment, under this theory, is sufiicient to take a case out
of the Statute of Limitations, Lord Momsfield, in Tru-
mcm v. J^'enton,' says : " The slightest acknowledgment
has been held sufiicient, as saying ' prove your debt, and
I will pay you ; ' ' I am ready to account, but nothing is
due you.' And much slighter acknowledgments than
these will take a case out of the statute." But if the
Statute of Limitations be a statute of repose, it remains
a bar to the enforcement of a claim within its provisions,
unless the debtor voluntarily renounces its benefit, and
makes a new promise to pay the old debt.
The course of adjudications by the English courts
under these statutes, is somewhat remarkable. The
early decisions adopted the theory of repose, but soon
the theory of presumption obtained, and continued
through a long line of adjudications. This view, how-
' Cowper, 548.
214 WHEN LIMITATION BEGINS. [§119.
ever, gradually . yielded to the first, which is now the
prevailing doctrine both in England and the United
States. '
§ 119. When the period of limitation begins to run.
— This may be governed by the wording of the particular
statute in question in a given case ; but as a general rule
the limitation begins to run when the right of action
accrues. It is then only that the reason of the limita-
tion applies, whether the theory of presumption, or of
repose, be adopted as the basis of the statute."
The period of limitation once begun, continues to run,
as a general rule, notwithstanding the subsequent occur-
rence of some disability which did not exist at the com-
mencement of the action, and which, had it then existed,
would have postponed the running of the statute until
removal of the disability.'
To the general rule governing the time when the stat-
ute begins to run, there are certain exceptions.- By
the statute of James, above referred to, it is provided in
substance, that if the plaintiff, at the time the action
' 3 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), p. 63; Bish. Cont. (Enl. Ed.), § 1351; 2 Soh.
Pers. Prop., p. 687. For English statutes on this subject, see Goodeve
Mod. L. Pers. Prop., p. S71, et seq.
' 8 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), pp. 90-94; Bish. Cont. (Enl. Ed.), §§ 1354-
1355; 2 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 680; Jones v. Jones, 91 Ind., 378; Vc-
Michael v. Carlyle, 53 Wis , 504; Wittersheim v. Lady Carlisle, 1 M.
& W., 533; Fryer v. Roe, 12 C. B., 437; 22 Eng. L. & Eq., 440; Bell v.
Lamprey, 57 N. H., 168.
» 3 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), p. 95; Harris v. MoGovern, 99 U. S., 161;
People v. Gordon, 82 111., 435; Hunton v. Nichols, 55 Tex., 217; Kist-
ler V. Hereth, 75 Ind., 177; HoweU v. Young, 5 B. & C, 259; Craw-
ford V. Gaulden, 33Ga., 173; Waters v. Thanet, 2 Q. B., 757; Leonard
V. Pitney, 5 Wend., 30.
§ 119. J NEW PE0MI8B. 215
accrues, be an infant, feme covert, non compos mentis,
imprisoned, or beyond the seas, he may bring his action
at any time within the prescribed period of limitation
after the disability ceases. Substantially like provisions
exist in the statutes of the several States of our Union,
with some variety of details. And it is held, that if
several disabilities co-exist when the right of action
accrues, the statute does not begin to run until all are
removed. But if only one exists where the cause of
action accrues, other disabilities arfsing afterwards can-
not be tacked to the first, so as to extend the time of
limitation. '
Absence of the defendant from the jurisdiction of the
State, will also create a disability, and postpone the run-
ning of the statute against the plaintiflf until such disa-
bility ceases."
The expression in the English statute "beyond the
seas, ' ' or similar substituted phrases, are used in some of
the American statutes, and the courts have not fully
agreed in their construction. Some construe such phrases
to mean beyond the limits of the United States, while
others hold, that beyond the State or jurisdiction where
the action is tried, will satisfy the statutes."
§ 120. New promise. — A new promise, either in fact or
by operation of law, will take a case out of the statute,
■ 3 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), p. 94, et seq.; 3 Sch. Pers. Prop. pp. 689,
690; Deinarest v. Wynkoop, 3 Johns. Ch., 129; Jackson v. Johnson, 5
Cow., 74; Butler v. Howe, 13 Me., 397; Jackson v. Wheat, 18 Johns.,
40; Eager v. Commonwealth, 4 Mass., 183; Dease v, Jones, 33 Miss.,
133; Scott V. Haddock, 11 Ga., 358.
' 3 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), p. 96, et seq.; 3 Sch. Pers. Prop. p. 690.
• 3 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), p. 99.
216 NEW PEOMI8E. § 120. J
revive a claim already barred, and extend the time of
limitation when made before its expiration. . In either
case a new, or extended, limitation begins to run from
the making of the new promise, of the same duration as
that of the original period. Otherwise stated, the new
promise, whether made by the debtor in fact, or for him
by operation of law, as by part payment, establishes a
new initial point for the period of limitation.'
By the English statute, and the statutes in most of our
States, a new promise eflfeotual to take a case out of t]ie
statute must be in writing.
There is not entire uniformity in the authorities upon
the question, — ^What will constitute a new promise? The
contrariety may be due in part to differences in the statu-
tory provisions on the subject. Eliminating from the
discussion the conflict, or apparent conflict in adjudica-
tions resulting from diversity of statutes, there are certain
rules which may be considered as established by the
weight of authority.
1. There must be either an express promise, or an
acknowledgment of an existing iadebtedness so expressed,
and under such circumstances as to give it the meaning,
and therefore the force and effect of a new promise.'
The rule laid down by Story J. in Bell v. Morrison,' is,
that an acknowledgment sufficient to remove the bar of
the statute, must be an unequivocal and positive recog-
1 Bish. Cont. (Enl. Ed.), g§ 1359-1365; 3 Sch. Pers. Prop. pp. 691-694;
3 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), p. 80, et s.eq.
' Tanner v. Smart, 6 B. & C, 603; Morrell v. Frith, 3 M. & W., 405;
Hart V. Rendergast, 14 M. & W., 746.
• i Peters, 363.
§ 120. J NEW PKOMISB. 217
nition of an existing debt, which the party is liable and
willing to pay. And to the same effect are many other
^American authorities. '
2. It is not necessary that the acknowledgment should
be of any particular amount. If there be an admission
of a legal debt, and of a liability " to pay it, evidence is
admissible to show the amount."
3. An acknowledgment of a general indebtedness,
merely, will not suffice; it must be broad enough to
include the specific debt in question, and yet sufficiently
precise and definite to indicate unmistakably such debt. '
4r. We have seen that an acknowledgment, effectual to
remove the bar of the statute, must be equivalent to a
new promise. It follows that an acknowledgment, al-
though in other respects complete, which is so guarded
and qualified by the maker as to negative a promise, or
which cannot be fairly construed into a promise, wiU not
suffice.*
' Piirdy V. Austin, 3 Wend., 187; Allen v. Webster, 15 Wend., 284;
Stafford v. Bryan, 2 Paige, 45; Loomis v. Decker, 1 Daly, 186; Cham-
bers V. Garland, 3 Green, G. (la.), 333; Stookett v. Sasscer, 8^d., 374;
Pritchard v. Howell, 1 Wis., 131; Moore v. Bank of Columbia, 6 Pet.,
86; Guier v, Pearce, 2 Browne (Pa.), 35; Young v. Monpoey, 2 Bailey
(S. C), 278.
' Dickinson v. Hatfield, 1 Moody & Rob., 141; Hazlebaker v.
Beeves, 13 Pa. St., 364; Dinsmore v. Dinsmore, 21 Me., 433; Chelsyn v.
Dalby, 4 Young & C, 238; Barnard v. Bartholomew, 23 Pick., 291;
Davis V. Steiner, 14 Pa. St., 275; Hale v. Hale, 4 Humph., 183; Thomp-
son V. French, 10 Yerg., 458.
' Moore v. Hyman, 13 Ired., 373; Buckingham v. Smith, 23 Conn.,
453; Dawson V. King, 20 Md., 443; Stafford v. Bryan, 3 Wend., 532;
Clark V. Dutcher, 9 Cow., 674.
* Tanner v. Smart, 6 B. & C. , 609 ; Mitchell v. Selman, 5 Md. , , 376 ;
Dajiforth v. Culver, 11 Johns., 146; Creuse v. Defiganier, 10 Bosw.,
218 PAET PAYMENT. [§120.
5. Part payment of a debt will, as a rule, take it out
of. the statute. The fact of payment is an acknowledg-
ment of an existing indebtedness, and on such acknowl-
edgment the law raises a promise of payment. ' But it
must appear that the payment is made only as a part of
a larger debt ; for in the absence of conclusive testimony,
it will not be deemed an admission of any more indebted-
ness than the sum paid."
6. The Statute of Limitations affects the remedy only ;
it does not discharge the debt, but simply bars an action
upon it after the lapse of the statutory limitation." Hence
it follows logically that, while the remedy by action is
gone with the lapse of the limitation, a lien or security
for the debt is not lost by the running of the statute ;
and to such effect is the weight of judicial authority.'
132; Lawrence V. Hopkins, 13 Johns., 288; Brown v. State Bank, 10
Ark., 134; Martin v. Broach, 6 Ga.. 21; Conway v. Reyburn, 22 Ark.,
390; Arey v. Stephenson, 11 Ired. L., 86; Bobbins v. Farley, 3 Strobh.,
348.
' 3 Pars. Cont., p. 80, et seq.\ 3 Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 691-694; Bish.
Cont. (Enl. Ed.), § 1363; Whipple v. Stevens, 2 Foster, 319; Baxter v.
Penniman, 8 Mass., 134; Bodger y. Arch, 28 Eng. L. & Eq., 464; Bank
of Utica V. Ballou, 49 N. Y., 155; Walker v. Wait, 50 Vt., 668;
Cuoully V. Hernandez, 103 U. S., 105; Engman v. Immel, 59 Wis.,
249; Ghck v. Crist, 37 Ohio St., 388; Buxton v. Edwards, 134 Mass.,
567.
^ Tippets V. Heane, Cromp. M, & R , 353; Linsell v. Bonsor, SBing.,
N. C, 341; Waugh v. Cope, 6 M. & W., 834; Hodge v. Macauley, 35
Vt., 316; Pickett Y. King, 34 Barb., 193; Lock v. Wilson, 9 Heisk.,
784, 10 Heisk., 441; Harris v. Howard, 56 Vt., 695.
» 3 Pars. Cont., pp. 100, 101; 3 Sch. Pers. Prop , p. 693.
* Spears Y. Hartley, 3 Esp., 81; Williams v. Jones, 13 East, 489;
Higgins V. Scott, 3 B. & Ad., 413; Mayor of N. Y. V. Colgate, 2 Duer.,
1; s. c, 12 N. Y., 140; Alexander v. Whipple, 45 N. H., 503; Pratt v.
Huggins, 29 Barb., 377.
§ 120.] NEW CONSIDEEATIOM. 219
7. No new consideration is requisite to validate a new
promise, whether it be a promise made in fact by the
debtor, or one made for him by operation ef law. As
the debt itself is not paid or discharged by the running
of the statute, the original consideration will sustain the
new promise.' The renewal of a debt barred by the
statute, so far as the necessity of a new consideration to
sustain a new promise is concerned, must not be con-
founded with the voluntary release of a debt by the
creditor for a sufficient consideration, or under seal with-
out consideration in fact, in which case the debt itself is
discharged. A new promise, founded on a new and suf-
ficient consideration, may create a new contract, obliging
the debtor to pay the old debt ; but this contract will not
rest upon the original consideration as in case of limita-
tion, for that consideration died with the original obliga-
tion of which it formed the basis."
There are some other incidental rules of minor import-
ance pertaining to this topic, which cannot be noticed
under the limitations of this treatise ; but the foregoing
outline view of the general principles governing the sub-
ject, Avill, it is believed, furnish a sufficient guide to the
student and the practitioner.
' Bish. Cont. (Enl. Ed.), §§ 1360, 1361.
' See Bish. Cont. (Enl. Ed ), § 1360, in connection with§§ 95-99; also
Hale V. Rice, 134 Mass., 292; Dunham v. Johnson, 135 Mass , 310;
Valentine v. Foster, 1 Met., 520; Montgomery v. Lampton, 9 Met.,
Ky., 519; Warren v. Whitney, S4 Me., 561; Snevily v. Read, 9 Watts,
396.
220 iifsuKAJsroE; definition, eto. [§121.
CHAPTEE XI.
INSURANCE.
Section 131. Definition and terms employed.
123. Nature, and form, of the contract.
133. Classes of policies.
124. Consummation of the contract.
125. Subject-matter of the contract.
136. Insurable interest.
137. Warranties ; representations ; statements.
128. Special provisions of the contract.
129. Mutual insurance.
§ 121. Definition, and terms employed. — The risk
or policy of insurance, being a species of incorporeal per-
sonal property, is entitled to recognition in this treatise;
tout for a fuU discussion of the subject in all its details,
reference must be had to works specially devoted to in-
surance law.
Insurance is, in brief, a contract of indemnity against
a loss which may arise on the occurrence of some event.
It may provide for the payment of a specified sum in
case of loss, as in marine and fire insurance contracts ; or
for the payment of the stipulated value of the articles
insured, as provided in what are termed "valued policies"
in fire insurance ; thus putting the party insured in as
good a condition as he would have been had no loss
occurred. Or, as in "open" or non- valued fire insur-
ance contracts, the provision for indemnity may be only
for the repayment of expenses incurred, and payment for
the lost property at its market value at the commence-
ment of the risk. In either case the insurer takes upon
§ 122.] NATTJEE AND FOEM OF CONTEAOT. 221
Mmself certain risks to ■which the insured would other-
wise be exposed ; and hence the contract of insurance is
like in character and effect to a bond of indenanity, or
the guaranty of a debt.'
The party undertaking to make the indemnity is called
the insv/rer or assurer; the party indemnified, the insured
or assv/red ; the consideration of the contract is called the
premium; the instrument embodying the contract is
termed the policy; the events and causes of loss insured
against are named rishs or perils; and the property or
rights of the insured, in respect of which he is liable to
loss, constitutes the svhject-Tnatter of the insurance, or
insurable interest.*
% 132. Nature, and form, of the contract. — It is a
personal contract, and does not run with the subject mat-
ter of the insurance, unless by force of special stipulations
which are not usual or legitimate elements of the contract
itself.' "Whatever may be the kind or form of insurance,
the object and intent of the contract is indemnity, as
shown in the last section, supra. Whether the contract
provides for the payment of a fixed sum on the occur-
rence of a certain event, as in the case of life and marine
insurance, and of valued policies in fire insurance; or
simply guarantees indemnity for loss, whatever it may
be, within the limitations and conditions of the contract,
' Phillips Ins., p. 1; May Ins., §§ 1, 3, 8; Williams Pers. Prop., p.
175; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 677; Bouv. L. Diet. "Insurance;" Lucena
V. Crawford, 2 Bos. & Pul., N. R., 800.
' Citations last, supra.
» May Ins. § 6; Wilson v. Hill, 3 Met. (Mass.), 66; Disbrow v. Jones,
Harr. (Mich ), Ch. 48; Carpenter v. Providence, Wash. Ins. Co., 16
Pet., 495;Sadler8' Company v. Babcock, 2 Atk., 554.
222 NATURE AND FORM OF OONTEACT. [ § 122
as in the case of open or non-valued policies ; the prin-
ciple is the same, the distinction between the different
kinds and forms of contract being only in the measure,
and mode of determining the amount of indemnity in case
of loss. ' In the further discussion of the subject, there-
fore, the different kinds of insurance, mutual excepted,
will not be treated separately. Mutual insurance has
some peculiar features which are pointed out in a subse-
; quent section.'
lie-insurcmce is an indemnity to the insurer against a
loss from a risk already assumed by him. The insurer
by a contract with another party becomes the insured
against loss on a risk for which he is the insurer. The
new contracting party undertakes in reference to the
first insurer, what the latter has undertaken in reference
to the party insured by him, and subject to like rights,
duties and obligations.'-
The original insured remains liable on his contract with
the party insured by him ; there being no privity of con-
tract between the latter and the re-insurer, he has no
claim upon him in case of loss.* If a loss occur the
reinsured may have an action against the rein-
surer, without first paying the loss to the original
insured ; and to maintain the action he must prove his
' May Ins., § 7.
« § 129.
a May Ins. §§ 9, 11; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 686; 3 Kent Com., p. 279; 1
Phillips Ins., §§78 a, 404.
* 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 688; 3 Kent Com., p. 279; Bowery Fire Ins.
Co. V. N. Y. Ins. Co., 17 Wend., 359; Philadelphia Ins. Co. v. Wash-
ington Ins. Co., 23 Pa. St., 250; Eagle Ins. Co. v. Lafayette Ins. Co.,
9 Ind. 443.
§ 122.J NATURE AND FORM OF CONTRACT. 223
interest in the subject matter, and the fact and amount
of loss, as the original insured must have proved them
against him ; and he is entitled to the same defenses that
are available to the original insurer on the first contract. '
Double insurance means two or more insurances on the
same risk, and the same interest. But, as the insured is
only entitled to indemnity, he can recover no more than
enough for that purpose in case of loss. He may, how-
ever, recover his whole loss of any one of the insurers ;
and the one paying the loss will have a claim for contri-
bution against the other insurers for their respective pro-
portions of the amount paid ; the several insurers holding
substantially the relation to each other of co-sureties,
with the like rights, duties, and obligations.' The amount
of recovery against any one of the co-insurers is now
quite generally limited in the contract to such proportion
of the loss as the amount insured by him bears to the
aggregate amount of insurance.'
The form of the contract is not essential. If, as a
whole, on a fair and reasonable interpretation, it imports
an insurance, it will stand, however informal and inarti-
ficial in structure. Written insurance contracts, termed
policies, are quite generally in use, and are advisable in
' May Ins. § 11; 3 Kent Com., p. 279; New York Mar. Ins. Co. v.
Prot. Ins. Co , 1 Story (C. C. Rep.), 458; Eagle Ins. Co. v Lafayette
Ins. Co., 9 Ind., 443; Hone v. Mut Safety Ins. Co., 1 Sandf., 137.
« May Ins., § 13; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 688, 689; 3 Kent Com , pp.
381, 382; Lucas v. Jefferson Ins. Go., 6 Cow., 635; Peoria Marine &
jTire Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 18 111., 553; Merrick v. Germania Fire Ins. Co.,
54 Pa. St., 377; Baltimore Fire Ins. Co. v. Lovey, 20 Md., 20; Gordon
V. London Assurance Co., 1 Burr., 492.
' Citations last, supra.
'^24: CLASSES OF POLICIES. [§123,
all oases ; but, on the weight of authority, an oral con-
tract may be valid when not contrary to statute. '
§ 1-<J3. Classes of policies There are three classes
of policies; valued, and open; wager a,nd interest / and
-time and voyage.
A valued policy is one in which the value of the prop-
erty insured, and the sum to be paid in case of loss, are
fixed by the terms of the contract ; and in an action on
the policy by the insured, when the loss is total, no proof
on these points dehors the written contract is requisite or
admissible. And if the insurance be upon several articles
of equal value at a stipulated aggregate valuation, the
insured will recover for the loss of one the. proportion
which it bears to the whole."
An open policy is one in which the value, and damages
in case of loss, are not fixed by the policy, but left open
to be proved, or otherwise determined by the parties,
which determination is called adjustment of the loss.'
The same policy, it should be noticed, may be open as to
one or more articles insured, and valued as to others.*
' May Ins., § 14, et seq.; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop , p. 680; Flaud. Fire Ins.,
62, 63; Commercial, etc., Ins. Co. v. Union Mufe Ins. Co., 19 How.,
S18; Davenport v. Peoria, etc., Ins. Co., 17 Iowa, 376; Baptist Church.
V. Brooklyn Ins. Co., 19 N. Y., 305.
' May Ins , §§ 30, 31; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 680, 681.
• Citations last, supra. And see Alsop v. Com. Ins. Co., 1 Sumner,
451; Carson v. Marine Ins. Co., 2 Wash. C. C, 468; Haight v. De la
Cour, 3 Camp., 319; Feise v. Aquilar, 3 Taunt., 506; Holmes v.
Charlestown Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 10 Met. (Mass.), 211; Cushman v.
Nojth Western Ins. Co., 34 Me., 487; Harris v. Eagle Ins. Co., 5
Joh:is., 368.
* May Ins., § 33; Post v. Hampshire Mut. Ins. Co., 12 Mass., 555;
Cushman v. North Western Ins. Co., 34 Me., 487.
§ 123. J CLASSES OF POLICIES. 225
A wager policy is one in which the insured has no in-
terest, nothing insurable, and hence runs no risk ; it is,
in other words, a gambling contract. The want of in-
terest appears by the terms of the policy, indicated by
such expressions as, '•'• without further froof of interest ^
■ than the policy,'''' '■'■ 'interest or no interest,'''' and the like.
Wager policies are prohibited in England, and such
clauses as those just quoted are held as conclusive proof
that the contract is a wager. But in this country it has
been held that these clauses are only prima facie evidence,
and are apen to explanation. As to whether wager con-
tracts are enforceable the authorities in this country are
not in full agreement.' But the better opinion, in accord-
ance with sound morality and the demands of public
policy, is against the enforcement of such contracts,
however christened, or in whatever guise they may ap-
pear.
Mr. Bishop in his late work on Contracts, uses this
language : ' 'And on a just view of things, a judge would
better serve the state, and more adorn his office, to go
round with blacking and brush shining the boots of the
officers of his court, than to sit on the bench enforcing a
wager." '
An interest policy is one in which, by its terms, the
insured has an interest in the subject matter of the insur-
' Winchester v. Nutter, 53 N. H., 507; Ball v. Gilbert, 13 Met., 395,
899; Wilkinson v. Tousley, 16 Minn., 399; HiU v. Kidd, 43 Cal., 615 ;
Merchants' Savings, etc. , Co. v. Goodrich, 75 111. , 554; Boughner v.
Meyer, 5 Colo., 71; Gridley v. Dorn, 57 Cal., 78.
' Bish Oont. (Enl. Ed.), § 531.
226 CONSUMMATION OF CONTRACT. [ § 124.
ance, and hence a risk constituting the basis for indem-
nity in case of loss. '
A time policy, as its name indicates, is one in which
the duration of the risk is fixed by definite periods of
time.
A voyage policy is one in -which the duration of the
risk is determined by geographical limits, as from New
York to Glasgow, and is applicable, also, to transporta-
tion by land as well as by water."
§ 124. Consummation of the contract. — As a general
rule, delivery of a written contract, whether a specialty
or a simple contract, is essential to its completion and
validity. Otherwise stated, if the parties intend to
reduce the agreement to writing, it will not take effect
until delivery of the intended written instrument. ' There
is, however, authority for saying that there are excep-
tions to the general rule ; that parties may be bound by
an agreement, if perfect in all other respects, even where
it is thereafter to be reduced to writing, in the absence of
a stipulation to the contrary. But the fact that the par-
ties do intend a reduction of their agreement to writing,
will be regarded as strong evidence that they did not con-
sider the unwritten negotiations as constituting a com-
plete' and binding contract.*
Insurance contracts, more frequently than most others,
' May Ins., § 33; 3 Kent Com., pp. 371, 277, 378.
« May Ins. § 34; Boehem v Combe, 2 M. & S., 172.
» Bisli. Cont. (Enl. Ed.), § 349, and cases cited.
« Waldo's Pollock Cont., pp. 41, 43; Pratt v. Railroad Co., 21 N. Y.,
805:Blaney V. Hoke, 14 Ohio St., 293; Bell v. OflEutt, 10 Bush, 632;
Blight V. Ashley, 1 Pet. C. C, 15; Wharton v. btoughtenburgh, 35
N. J Eq., 266; Paige v. Fullerton Woolen Co., 27 Vt., 485; Ridgway
v.. Wharton, 6 H. L. C, 238, 364, 368; Lyman v. Robinson, 14 A]len,
§124.J CONSTJMMATION OF CONTEACT. 227
fall within the exception to the general rule ; and this
may be due to the character of these contracts, and the
machinery of insurance companies and their agencies.
"Where negotiations for insurance have been bad, the ques-
tion sometimes arises whether such negotiations have
resulted in an agreement binding upon the parties ; and
in some cases this question is not readily solved. The
test applied by the courts is : Have the parties come to a
definite agreement upon all the elements and terms of
the contract, so that nothing remains to be done, but to
fiU up and deliver the policy by the insurers, and to pay
the premium by the insured? If yea, the contract is con-
summated, in the absence of a stipulation by the parties,
and of a law, making delivery of the policy essential to
the validity of the agreement ; if nay, the contract is not
completed.' Where the terms are all agreed upon by
the parties, the liability of the insurers may become fixed
before the issuance of the policy, so that the insured will
be entitled ro recover for a loss happening in the interim ;
and if the insurers refuse to issue a policy in pursuance
of the agreement, when the rights and interests of the
insured require it, a court of equity will compel its issu-
ance."
243, 354; Brown t. Railroad Co., 44 N. Y., 79, 86; Methudy v. Ross, 10
Mo. App., 101, 106.
' May Ins. § 44; Hallook v. Commercial Ins. Co., 3 Dutch. (N. J.),
368; 8. c, 3 Dutch. (N. J), 645; Flint v. Ohio Ins. Co., 8 Ohio, 501:
Am, Home Ins. Co, v. Patterson, 38 Ind., 17; Xenos v. Markham, 8
Law Repts. (H. L.), 396; Kelly v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 10 Bosw.,
83; Com Mut. Marine Ins. Co. v. Union Mut. Ins. Co., 19 How., 318;
New England, etc , Ins. Co. v. Robinson, 35 Ind., 536; Davenport v.
Peoria, etc., Ins. Co., 17 Iowa, 376.
' May Ins., § 45; Kohne v. Ins. Co. of North America, 1 Wash. (U.
2iJ8 8UBJECT-MATTEE OF CONTRACT. [ § 125
When the negotiations are conducted by written cor-
respondence through the mail, the time when the contract
is consummated so as to bind both parties has been much
discussed, and developed some contrariety of judicial
opinion. The same rule that governs other contracts
thus negotiated, and which is fully treated in works
specially devoted to the' subject of contracts, applies to
insurance negotiations and contracts as well ; and there
is, therefore, no call for considering the question in this
connection.
Where delivery of the policy is essential to the con-
summation of a contract, the question occurs : What
constitutes delivery? Obviously, an actual manual trans-
fer from one party to the other will constitute a delivery ;
but this is not a necessary formality. It has been well
said that the ' ' delivery may be by any act intended to
signify that the instrument shall have present validity. ' ' *
The question of delivery is often one of intention."
Mr. Justice Dodderidge, in his Sheppard's Touchstone,
quaintly defines delivery thus : ' ' Delivery is either
actual, i. e. , by doing something and saying nothing;
or else verbal, i. e. , by saying something and doing noth-
ing ; or it may be by both ; and either of these may
make a good delivery and a perfect deed." '
V
§ 125. Subject-matter of the contract. — The field of
S. C. C), 93; Goodall v. N. E. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 5 Fost. (N. H.), 169;
and see, also, citations last supra.
' Hallock V. Com. Ins. Co., 2 Dutch. (JSt. J.), 268; s. c, 3 Dutch. (N.
J.), 645.
' May Ins., § 60; Whittaker v. Farmers' Union Ins. Co., 29 Barb.,
313; Kentucky Mut. Co. v. Jenks, 5 Ind., 96.
'IShep. Touch., 57.
§ 12 6. J INSURABLE INTEREST. 229
insurable property is very broad. Any property which
is the subject of lawful ownership or use, and wbich is
lawfully employed, may be insured. The doctrine is
well stated by May as follows : "Whatever has an ap-
preciable pecuniary value, and is subject to loss or deteri-
oration, or of which one may be deprived, or which he
may fail to realize, whereby his pecuniary interest is or
may be prejudiced, may properly constitute the subject
matter of insurance." ' This statement, it will be seen,
embraces every species of property, real, personal, and
mixed; corporeal and incorporeal; in esse ov in posse;
and in possession or expectancy. The doctrine thus
broadly and comprehensively stated is fully sustained by
the authorities."
§ 126. Insurable interest. — That the insured must
have some insurable interest in the subject matter of the
insurance is a cardinal and well established principle.
"Without such interest the contract would be essentially a
gambling contract, and hence invalid.' This rule, it
should be understood, applies only to an insurance for the
benefit of a party to the, contract; a person having no
insurable interest in the subject-matter may insure in his
own name for the benefit of the true owner of the prop-
erty.* It is not easy to define with accuracy what con-
' May Ins., §72.
» May Ins., §§ 71-73; Wilson v. HiU, 3 Met., 66; Carpenter v. Prov.
Wash. Ins. Co., 16 Pet., 495; Ellicott v. United States Ins. Co., 8 Gill
& Johns. rMd.), 166; Carter v. Boehm, 3 Burr., 1095; Lucena v. Craw-
ford, 2 New Rep., 301.
» Supra, § 123 ; May Ins.. g§ 33, 74 ; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 682 ; 1
Bouv. L. Diet. "Insurable Interest;" 3 Kent Com., p 262.
« 1 Sch. Pers. Prop , p. 684 ; Flaud, Fire Ins., 378 ; Turner v. .Bur-
230 INSUEABLE INTEREST. [ § 126,
stitutes an insurable interest, so as to relieve the question
from doubt in all cases that may arise ; but it may suffice
for practical purposes in general to say, that the insured
must have such an interest in the subject-matter as, in
case of its destruction, or injury, he would suffer pecuni-
ary damage. Within this rule the property, title, or in-
terest, of the insured in or to the subject-matter of the
insurance may be absolute or qualified, general or special,
legal or equitable, existent or potential, present or pros-
pective. Numerous examples are furnished in the books. '
From a legitimate practical application of this doctrine,
it logically follows that there may be separate insurable
interests in the same property, as the legal, and equitable,
title or interests; and in other oases embraced in the
principle stated."
To entitle the insured to recover on his contract, he
must have had an interest in the subject-matter at the
time when it was consummated, and also when the loss
occurred." It follows that alienation of the insured prop-
rows, 8 Wend., 144; Work v. Merchants', etc., Fire Ins. Co., 11 Gush ,
271.
' May Ins., § 76, et seq.; 3 Kent Com., p. 263, et seq.; 1 Sch. Pers.
Prop., p. 682, et seq.; Bouv. L. Diet. " Insurable Interest."
« May Ins., § 81 et seq.; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 683-684; Strong v.
Manuf. Ins. Co., 10 Pick., 40; Columbian Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 3
Pet., 735; Allen v. Franklin Ins. Co., 9 How. Pr. Eep., 501; Franklin
Ins. Co. V. Findlay, 6 Whart. (Pa.), 483; Niblo v. North Am. Ins. Co.,
1 Sandf., 551 ; Fletcher v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 18 Pick., 419;
Tongue v. Nutwell, 31 Md., 803; Franklin Ins. Co. v. Drake, 3 B. Mon.
(Ky.), 47; Abbott v. Hampden Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 30 Me , 414; Harris
V. York Mut. Ins. Co., 50 Pa. St., 341; and many other eases, illustrat-
ing the application of the doctrine, too numerous for citation.
* May Ins., § 100; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 685; Howard v. Albany
Ins. Co., 3 Denio, 301; Fowler v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 26 N. Y., 422 ;
§ 127.] WAEEANTIES AND EEPEESENTATIONS. 231
erty after insurance, continued until occurrence of the
loss, will bar a recovery by the party insured ; and it has.
been held that alienation of title will have this effect,
even although the insured should regain title and hold it
at the time of the loss.' But the soundness of this
holding may well be doubted, as it has been on high
authority."
Modern policies quite generally, if not in all cases,
contain stipulations in regard to the assignment of the
policy, and the alienation of the subject-matter of insur-
ance ; and these stipulations, as construed by the courts,
determine the rights of the respective parties.
§ 127. Warranties, aud representations. — State-,
ments, provisos, conditions, by-laws, and stipulations of
various kinds, when found in the policy and expressly
made part of it, become warranties, and are so held and
treated^ by the courts. A warranty, it is held, is an agree-
ment in the nature of a condition precedent, and must be
strictly complied with.' The existence or non-existence
of a warranty will not depend in any case upon a par-
ticular form of words ; but any statement or stipulation,
upon the literal truth or fulfillment of which it is appar-
ent that the parties intended to rest the validity of the
Lynch v. Dalzell, 3 Bro. P. C, 492; Sadler's Co. v. Babcock, 3 Atk.,
534.
' Cockerell v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 16 Ohio, 148.
' May Ins., §§ 101, 265, and cases there cited; Worthington v. Bearse,
13 AUen, 883; Hooper v. Hudson Eiver Ins. Co., 17 N. Y., 434, 436 ;
West Branch Ins Co. v. Helfenstein, 40 Pa. St., 289.
» Daniels V. Hudson River Fire Ins. Co., 12 Cush., 416; Ripley v.
Mma. Fire-Ins. Co., 30 N. Y., 136; Campbell v. N. E Mut. Life Ins.
Co., 98 Mass., 381; May Ins., § 156, et seq.; 3 Kent Com., p. 289; 1
Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 686-8S8.
232 WAEEANTIES AND EEPEESENTATIONS. [ § 127.
contract, will constitute a warranty. ' And whether the
fact stated or stipulation made be material to the risk, or
otherwise, will not affect the question of warranty.'
Of warranties there are two classes, affirmatwe, and
promissory. The former concern the present, being such
as affirm the existence or non-existence of some fact at
the time of insurance ; while the latter look to the future,
requiring something to be done or omitted by the insured
during the continuance of the risk. A breach of either
will avoid the contract.'
A representation is defined as " a statement incidental
to the contract, relative to some fact having reference
thereto, and upon the faith of which the contract is en-
tered into. ' ' ' The difference between a warranty and a
representation is, in brief, this : the former enters into
and becomes an essential part of the contract, while the
latter is a statement incidental or collateral to the con-
tract. If an affirmative representation be material to
the risk, and substantially false, the contract cannot be
enforced ; and the breach of a material promissory repre-
sentation will have the same effect. But, as already
stated, under warranties the question of materiality does'
not arise ; they must be strictly and literally complied
' Citations last supra; and Westfall v. Hudson River Fire Ins. Co.,
2 Duer, 490, 494; Kingsley v. N. E. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 8 Cush., 393.
« Sayles v. North Western Ins. Co.. 8 Curtis (U. S. C. C), 612; New
Castle Fire Ins. Co. v. McMorran, 3 Dow. P. C, 255; Witherell v.
Marine Ins. Co., 49 Me., 200; Pawson v. Watson, Cowp., 785; Ander-
son V. Fitzgerald, 24 Eng. L. & Eq., 1; 4 H. of L. Cas., 484.
' Citations Hupra; and Borradaile v. Hunter, 5 M. & G., 639; Jen-
nings V. Chenango Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Denio, 75; Stout v. City Fire
Ins. Co., 12 Iowa, 371. ;,
' May Ins., § 181.
§ 127.] WAEEAHTIES AND EEPEESENTATIONS. 233
with, whether material or immaterial to the risk ; while
a substantial compliance with a representation in such
particulars as may reasonably be supposed to have influ-
enced the insurers in consummating the contract, will
suffice. '
Eepresentations, like warranties, are of two kinds,
affirmative and promissory. The former are allegations
of facts existing at the time the contract is made ; the
latter are statements or promises in regard to matters in
the future during the term of insurance, which may affect
the risk." The representations of the insured should be
full, as well as true. That is, every fact material to the
risk which is known to the insured, and which he believes,
or has reason to believe, is material must be disclosed.
A failure in this respect, termed in the law of insurance
concealment, will be treated as a fraudulent suppression
of the truth, and invalidate the contract. And facts
material to the risk, if called for by the insurer, must be
disclosed by the insured in his application, even though
he do not think them material ; and when expressly made
part of the contract, the representations, whether volun-
tary or in response to questions, become warranties. '
' May Ins., §§ 181-184; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 686-688; 3 Kent Com.,
p 2'^2, et seq.; Daniels v. Hudson Eiver Fire Ins. Co., 13 Cush., 416;
Campbell V. N. E. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 98 Mass., 381; Nicol v. Am.
Ins. Co., 3 Wood & M. (U. S. C ),'529; Wainwright v. Blapd, 3 Mad.
& Rob., 481; b. c. 1 Mees. & W., 33; Abbott v. Howard, Hayes (Irish),
381; Kimball v. Mtna, Ins. Co., 9 AUen, 540; Tyler v. ^tna Ins. Co.,
13 Wend., 507; Protection Jns. Co. v, Harmer, 3 Ohio St., 453; Insur-
ance Co. V. Chase, 5 Wall., 509; Tesson v. Atlantic Mut. Ins, Co., 40
Mo., 83; Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dale, 18 Md., 26; Gates v. Madison Co. Mut.
Ins. Co., 5 N. Y., 469.
'May Ins., §183.
• May Ins., § 300 et seq.; Lindeneau v. Desborough, 3 Man. & Ry,,
234 SPECIAL PEOVISIONS OF THE CONTEACl. [ § 128.
§ 128. Special proTisions of the contract. — Modern
insurance policies contain numerous provisions, and have
become so complicated in their structure that a full under-
standing and proper construction of them often requires
considerable legal acumen, and careful study. The prac-
tice of accepting them without intelligent examination, or
competent legal advice, has been the subject of judicial
animadversion. In Woodbury Savings Banh v. Charter
Oak Ins. Co.,^ it was said in substance by the court, that
before executing almost any other instrument of equal
perplexity, the parties would deem it necessary to take
the advice of counsel ; that questions frequently arise as
to the proper construction of the terms used, which
divide the opinion of the most learned jurists.
For a discussion of the special provisions of insurance
policies separately, and in detail, reference must be had
to works specially devoted to the law of insurance ; only
the classes, and the general rules governing each class,
can be noticed in this connection.
There are generally two classes of provisions or stipu-
lations in the modern policy; one of which embraces mat-
ters Ififore, and the other, things done or omitted after,
the loss. The purpose of the former is to define and
determine the risk, including title, alienation, location,
occupation, use, character, habits^ mode of life, or what-
ever may afiPect the risk; the office of the latter is
to prescrible the rights and duties of the respectire
parties after a loss, and the mode of enforcing 'iho
45; Vosev. Life and Health Ins. Co., 6 Gush., 42; Miles v. Corn..
Mut. Life Ins. Co., 3 Gray, 580; Gladstone v. King, 1 Maule & S., 35.
• 31 Conn., 517.
§ 12 8. J SPECIAL PEOVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT. 235
contract. The first class, it will be seen, affect the sub-
stance of the contract, determining its validity, the
liability of the insurers, and the security of the insured ;
while the second class apply only when the rights and
liabilities of the respective parties have become fixed by
the terms of the contract, and relate to the formalities
prescribed for observance by the insured in enforcing his
claim for indemnity. By reason of their superior im-
portance, the rule has become established that the first
class of stipulations will be more strictly construed than
those of the second class. The latter, however, must be
substantially complied with.'
There are two provisions which it may be well to
notice specially in passing ; the one concerning limitation
of an action on the policy, and the other in reference to
arbitration. It is quite common for the parties to a con-
tract of insurance to create for themselves and the con-
tract a limitation unknown to the statute, by inserting a
provision in the policy that no action upon it on a claim
for indemnity shall be maintained, unless it be com-
menced within a specified time after the loss, or after
notice of the loss. Such a provision is held to be valid,
binding the insured.' Coupled with this provision is the
' May Ins., § 816, et seq.; Northwestern Ins. Co. v. Atkins, 3 Bush,
(Ky.), 328; Walsh v. Washington, etc , Ins. Co., 33 N. Y., 427; Sexton
V. Montgomery Ins. Co., 9 Barb., 191; Lycoming, etc., Ins. Co. v. Up-
degraflf, 40Pa. St., 811.
' May Ins., § 478; Amesbury v. Bowditch Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 6
Gray, 596; Brown v. Roger Williams Ins. Co., 7 R. I., 301; s. o. 5 R.
I., 304; Peoria Ins. Co. v. Whitehill, 25 111., 466; North Western Ins.
Co. V. Phoenix Oil and Candle Co., 1 Pa. St., 449; Wilson v. ^tna
Ins. Co , 27 Vt., 99; Bruce, et vas. v. Savannah Mut. Ins. Co., 24
Ga , 97; Portage County Mut. Ins Co. v. West, 6 Ohio, 599; Carter v.
236 SPECIAL PBOTISIONS OF THE CONTEAOT. [ § 128.
further one, that the lapse of the prescribed period of
limitation without commencing an action, shall be con-
clusive evidence against the plaintiff's claim in an action
for its enforcement subsequently commenced. These
•stipulations, combined, not only create for the parties
and contract a special limitation, but also estabhsh for the
parties and the court, a new and special rule of evidence
for an action on the policy. Both of these provisions are
held to be valid.' The other provision to which atten-
tion is directed is, that in case of loss, and of disagree-
ment upon the terms of adjustment, all matters in dis-
pute shall be submitted to arbitration. But it is gen-
•eraUy held by the courts that this provision has no bind-
ing force. The parties may voluntarily arbitrate their
differences, and this course will be approved by the
■courts ; but they cannot, by an agreement between them-
selves in advance, deprive the courts of their jurisdiction
•conferred by law. The parties are not above the law, or
in all respects a law unto themselves. Moreover, as the
•courts have power to compel specific performance of con-
tracts, if the provision in question were held valid, they
might be called upon to enforce it, thus obtaining judi-
cial cognizance of a matter as to which the stipulation of
parties had denied them jurisdiction. This result, it is
:said in Hill v. HolUster,'' would place the parties in "the
Humbolt Fire Ins. Co., 13 Iowa, 287; Riddlesbarger v. Hartford Ins.
Co., 7 Wall., 386.
' Citations last supra, and Cray v. Hartford Ins. Co., 1 Blatchf.,
-280; Riddlesberger v. Hartford Ins. Co , 6 Wall., 386;Fullam v. New
York, etc., Ins. Co., 7 Gray, 61; Schroeder v. Insurance Co., 2 Phil.
Pa., 286.
» 1 Wilson, 139. And see May Ins., § 493; Scott v. Avery, 2 Eng.
X,. & Eq., 337; s. o. 5 H. L. C, 311; Scott v. The Phoenix Ass. Co., 1
§129. J MUTUAL INSUEANCE. 237
ludicrous attitude of coming into court for the purpose of
compelling each other to keep out. ' '
But, while the courts cannot, by a stipulation in the
policy, be deprived of jurisdiction, or the insured of an
action at law to determine his right of recovery, a pro-
vision in the contract for the adjustment of damages, or
other subordinate particulars, not affecting the merits of
the claim for indemnification, will bind the parties,^ and
be enforced by the courts.'
§ 129. Mutual insurance. — It has been already
stated ' that mutual insurance differs in some respects
from other kinds of insurance. The leading peculiarity
of mutual insurance is, that each person insured becomes
a member of the company insuring, participates in the
management, shares in the profits and losses of the bus-
iness, is clothed with the rights, and subject to the lia-
bilities, of a stockholder. ' ' He is at once insurer and
insured." The acceptance of a policy by a party makes
him a member of the company ; and he thereby becomes
bound by its rules which he is presumed to know." But
neither a by-law, nor any other act of the company,
Stuart (Lower Canada), 152; Robinson v. Georges Ins. Co., 17 Me.
131; Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Hocking, 115 Pa. St., 407; Cross-
ley V. Conn. Fire Ins. Co., 27 Fed. Rep., 30.
' May Ins., § 493; Braunstein v. Accidental Death Ass. Co., 1 Best
& Smith, 7 2; Tredwen- v. Holman, 1 Hurl. & C, 72; Lowndes v.
Stamford, 18 Q. B., 425; Trott v. City Ins. Co., 1 Cliff. (IT. S. C. Ct.);
438; Soars v. Home Ins. Co., 140 Mass., 343.
' § 122 Supra.
^ May Ins., g§ 548, 553; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 678, 679; Bouv. L. .
Diet. "Insurance Company;" Mygatt v. N. Y. Prot. Ins. Co., 21 N.
Y. , 53; Ohio Mut. Ins. Co. v. Marietta Woolen Factory, 3 Ohio St. , N.
B., 348; Union Ins. Co. v. Hoge, How. fU. 8.), 35; White v. Havens,
238 MUTUAL INSUEANOE. [ § 129.
affecting his contract or relation to the company, passed
or done without his consent, will bind him. '
There are noticeable differances between a joint stock,
and a mutual, insurance company in respect to capital.
In the former, the capital is limited in the act of incor-
poration ; while in the latter, it is ordinarily unlimited,
depending upon the amount earned by the company and
invested for the purposes of its business. The former,
like other joint stock companies with a cash capital,
issues transferable shares representing the capital;
while in the latter, the capital is made up by what are
termed ' ' deposit notes, ' ' by premiums paid on insurance,
and by the business earnings of the company.' In addi-
tion to the deposit notes given to make up the capital
stock of the company, and assessable to pay losses, notes
are sometimes given to the company in advance for pre-
miums, usually called "stock notes," made payable in
terms by insurance from time 'to time, as the makers may
require. The former class are subscription notes to the
capital stock of the company, are held for the security of
2 How. Pr. Eep., 177; Mitchell v. Lycoming Ins. Co., 51 Pa. St., 403;
Coles V. Iowa State Mut. Ins Co., 18 Iowa, 426; Diehl v. Adams Co.
Mut Ins. Co., 58 Pa. St., 443; Sands v. Hill, 42 Barb., 65; Traders'
Mut. Ins. Co. V. Stone, 9 AUen (Mass.), 483; Currie v. Mut. Ass. Soc,
4 H. & M. (Va.), 815; Fell v. McHenry, 43 Pa. St.. 41; New England
Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Belknap, 9 Cush., 140.
' New England Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Butler, 34 Me., 351; Hamil-
ton Mut. Ins. Co. V. Hobarf;, 3 Gray, 543; Insurance Co. v. Connor,
17 Pa. St., 136; Great Falls Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Harvey, 45 N. H.,
293.
^ 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 678; May Ins., § 549; Fland. Fire Ins., 18, 19;
Cumberland Valley Mut. Prot. Co. v. ScheU, 29 Pa. St.. 31; Sun Mut.
Ins. Co. V. Mayor, 8 Barb., 450; Cora v. Mut. Assurance Co., 6 Crabbe,.
103.
§ 12 9. J MUTUAL INSUEANOE 239
dealers, are negotiable, or collectable for the payment
of losses or debts, and valid obligations to the full
amount thereof, whether any premiums have been actu-
ally earned or not ; while in the latter class the makers
are only liable for the jpro rata share of such losses as
may occur upon risks thereafter assumed, in common
with all other premium notes held by the company. The
former, being payable absolutely, are subject to the
Statute of Limitations ; while the latter, being payable
on a contingency that may never happen, are not, as a
whole, subject to the statute, but only such portion of
them as may be called for, and from the time of the
caU.'
, May Ins., §549; 1 Soh. Pers. Prop., p. 680; Dana v. Munro, 38
Barb., 538; EweU v. Crocker, 4 Bosw., 22; Bell v. Shilley, 33 Barb.,
€10; Mclntyre v. Preston, 5 GUm. (111.), 48; White v. Haight, 16 N. Y.,
310; Tuckerman v. Brown, 33 N. Y., 297.
240 LEGACIES, DEFINITION, AND CLASSES. [ § 130.
CHAPTEK XII.
LEGACIES AND DISTRIBUTIVE SHARES.
LEGACIES.
SECynON 130. Definition, and principal classes.
131. Minor divisions, rules and incidents.
133. Abatement, ademption, payment and satlsfaetion.
DISTRIBUTIVE SHAKES.
Section 133. Defined and explained.
Legacies and distributive shares, being species of incor-
poreal personal property, are legitimate subjects of notice
in this treatise.
I. Legacies.
§ 130. Deflnition and principal classes. — ^A legacy
is a testamentary gift of personal property. The word
' ' bequest ' ' has the same significance ; and its verb
' ' bequeath ' ' is generally used in wills, the substantive
" legacy " having no corresponding verb.'
Legacies naturally range in three general classes,
namely, general, demonstrative, and spiecific.
1. General. — A general legacy is one which simply
gives a sum of money, or other property, without fur-
ther description, and, consequently without limiting the
subject of the gift to any particular portion of the estate,
in exclusion of other portions of the same kind.
' 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 338; Bouv. L. Diet., "Legacy;" O'Hara's
Wig. WiUs, p. 330, e,t seq.; And. L. Diet., "T^egacy."
§ 130.] DEMONSTRATIVE, AND SPECIFIC. 241
2. Demonstrative. — A legacy of this class is briefly
defined, a gift of a general legacy to be drawn from a
specific fund. If the fund fails, the legacy becomes a
charge upon the general assets.
3. Specific. — A specific legacy is the gift of a thing
in specie, and not of its value. In other words, it is a
bequest of a specified part of a testator's personal estate,
distinguished from all others of the same kind.'
Between general and specific legacies there is this
important difference : In the latter, if the testator do
not leave the specific thing bequeathed the gift fails
altogether, the legatee having no claim on the estate at
large in virtue of the legacy. But if the specific thing
be found among the assets, the legatee will be entitled
to it without diminution, or contribution by reason of a
deficiency in the estate to pay all the legacies in full."
A general legacy, on the other hand, is a charge upon
the whole personal estate, and must be paid in full if the
assets be sufficient to satisfy debts and legacies in full ;
but in case the personalty be insufficient for such pur-
pose, the general legacy wiU abate or be subject to con-
tribution."
' O'Hara's Wig. Wills, p. 330; Eedf. WiUs, p. 181, et seq.; 1 Sch.
Pers. Prop., p. 730; WiU, Exrs., p. 340; 2Maed.,Ch. Pr,,pp. 7, 8;
Coleman v. Coleman, 2 Ves., Jr., p. 160; TifEt v. Porter, 8 N. Y., 518;
Ludlam's Estate, 1 Harris, 188 ; Walls v. Stewart, 4 Harris, 381 ;
Malone v. Mooring, 40 Miss., 247; Millens v. Smith, 1 Drew & S. (Ire-
land, Ch.), 204; Gilmer v. Gilmer, 43 Ala., 9.
« 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 730, 731; WUl. Exrs., p. 350 ; 3 Williams
Exrs., 1076, et seq.; 2 Redf. Wills, pp. 181-186; Fountain vj Tyler, 9
Price, 94, 104; Purse v. Snaplin, 1 Atk., 414; Morris v. .Thomson, Mc-
Cart. (N. J.), Ch. 493; Foote, Appellant, 22 Pick., 299; Stephenson v.
Dowson, 8 Beav , 343.
• Citations last supra.
IG
242 MINOE DIVISIONS, EULES, ETC. [ § 131.
Demonstrative legacies partake, in certain respects, of
the nature both of general, and specific legacies ; of the
former, in that if the fund from which the legacy is to
be paid for any reason fails, the legatee will not 'lose his
bequest, but may receive it from the general assets ; of
the latter, in the particular that the legacy is not liable
to abatement upon a deficiency of assets to pay aU the
legacies. '
It should be observed in passing that the courts are
disinclined to construe legacies as specific, unless com-
pelled so to do by the clearly expressed intention of the
testator; and for the reason that specific legacies are
rega,rded as ' ' less consonant to reason and justice, ' ' and
more liable to render a provision of the testator ineffect-
ive, than general legacies.*
§ 131. Minor divisions; rules and incidents. — In
addition to the principal classes of legacies now briefly
noticed, there are several minor divisions, with rules and
incidents, that require attention.
1. Gumulatvoe legacies. — When the same, or a differ-
ent, amount of money, or other things, estimated by
' 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 733; O'Hara's Wig. Wills, p. 331; 3 Redf.
Wills, p. 136; Will. Exrs.. p. 357; Creed v. Creed, 11 Clark & F. 508;
Coleman V. Coleman, 3 Ves. Jr., 640; 3 Wms. Exrs. (6tli Eng. Ed.),
1078.
' 3 Redf. W'.ll3, p. 145, et seq. ; O'Hara's Wig. Wills, pp. 333, 334;
Will Exrs., p. 349; Sibley v. Perry. 7 Ves., 580 ; Smith v. Lampton,
8 Dana, 69; Briggs v. Hosford, 33 Pick., 388, 389; Chaworth v. Beech,
4 Ves., 555; Mayraunt v. Davis, 1 Desaus., 303; Cuthbert v. Cuthbert,
8 Yeates, 486 ; Ellis v. Walker, Ambler, 310; Walton v. Walton, 7
Johns. Ch R., 364; TiflEt v. Porter, 8 N. Y., 518; Enders v. Enders, 3
Barb. , 363, 367.
§ 131. J EESIDtTAEY LEGACIES. 243
quantity, is given to the same- person more than once by
will or codicil, the question arises whether the several
bequests are to be construed as cumulative, or merely
repetitions, giving the beneficiary but one legacy. The
rule of construction governing such cases seems to be
well established, that where the legacies are of the same
amount, and in the same instrument, it will be presumed
that they are repetitions of the same gift, and will be so
adjudged, unless a different intent is shown by the
language of the instrument, and the surrounding circum-
stances. But where the legacies are not in the same
instrument, or of the same amount, the presumption is
that they are cumulative, and the legatee will take both,
unless it be clearly shown that the testator intended but
one gift.'
2. Residua/ry legacy . — A residuary bequest carries to
the legatee all the personal property of the testator
which he did not attempt to otherwise dispose of by his
will, and also every thing that he did attempt to other-
wise dispose of, but ineffectually, as void and lapsed leg-
acies. This effect results from a presumption in favor of
the residuary legatee, and a decided disclination of the
courts to adopt a construction of wills which would result
in partial intestacy.*
• 2 Eedf. Wills, p. 178, et seq.; O'Hara's Wig. WiUs, pp. 350-353; 1
Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 733; WiU. Exrs., pp. 363, 363; Suisse v. Lowther,
3 Hare, 434, 433, 433; Holford v. Wood, 4 Ves., 76; Manning v. Thes-
eiger, 3 Mylne & K., 39; Ridges v." Morrison, 1 Br. Cr. Cas., 389;
Yockney v. Hansard, 8 Hare, 630, 623; Lobley v. Stocks, 19 Beav.,
S93; DeWitt v. Yates, 10 Johns., 156; Jones v. Creveling, Harr. N. J.,
127; Masters v. Masters, 1 P. Wms., 424.
' 3 Eedf. WUls, p. 115, et seq.; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 733; O'Hara's
Wig. Wills, pp. 349, 350; Attorney General v. Johnstone, Amb., 577;
244 VESTED, AND CONTINGENT, LEGACIES. [ § 131.
3. Yested, omd contingent, legacies. — A vested legacy
is one that takes effect, or becomes vested, on the death
of the testator; at testator's decease it becomes " a cer-
tain interest in a certain person." A contingent legacy
on the other hand, is one the vesting of which depends
upon some uncertain person or event.' If there be
nothing in the will clearly indicating a contrary intention,
the legacy will take effect at testator's decease, the pre-
sumption being in favor of a vested, rather than a con-
tingent, legacy ; and, in case of ambiguity, the courts in
construing the will incline to a vested, in preference to a
contingent, interest."
It must not be understood, however, that the mere
fact that the legatee does not become entitled to the
inmiediate possession and enjoyment of the legacy at the
death of the testator, or at the time when legacies are
payable by law, necessarily makes it contingent ; for two
estates or interests may vest at testator's death, the
one in possession and the other in expectancy. The
enjoyment of the gift by the legatee may be postponed
for a limited period after testator's death, and yet be a
Cowling V. Cowling, 26 Beav., 449; King v. Strong, 9 Paige, 105;
Peay v. Barber, 1 Hill Ch. (S. C), 95; Cambridge v. Boas, 8 Vesey,
13, 15; Leake v. Bobioson, 2 Mer., 363, 393; Beynolds v. Kortright,
3eav., 417, 427.
' O'Hara's Wig. Wills, pp. 261-265; 3 Bedf. Wills, p. 215; 1 Sch.
Pers. Prop., pp. 737-788; Will. Exrs., p. 358; Bedf. Surr., p. 823.
' Citations last supra, and see Guyther v. Taylor; 3 Ired. (N. C),
Eq., 328; Eldridge v. Eldridge, 6 Cush., 516; Devane v. Larkins, 3
Jones (N. C), Eq., 377; Gill v. Weaver, 1 Dev. & B. (N. C), Eq., 41;
Burd V. Burd, 4 Pa. St., 183; Gilford v. Thome, 9 N. J. Eq.,
(1 Stock.), 703; Van Vechten v. Van Vechten, 8 Paige, 104; Dominick
V. Moore, 3 Bradf. Surr., 201; Newport v. Cook, Id., 832.
§ 131.] ABSOLtTTE, CONDITIONAL, AND LAPSED. 245
vested legacy ; the interest may vest in right, although
not in immediate possession. '
4. Absolute, and conditional, legacies. — These are
nearly allied to, and in some respects the same as, vested
and contingent leagacies. An absolute legacy is an un-
qualified testamentary gift. A conditional legacy is a
bequest depending upon the occurrence or non-occurrence
of an uncertain event, by which the legacy wiU vest, or
be defeated.'
There are two kinds of conditions, precedent and sul-
seqv^nt. The former are those in which the vesting of
the legacy is postponed to, and made 'conditional upon,
the happening of some given event, or the arrival of
some specified time. The latter is a legacy which, though
vested, may be defeated by the happening or not happen-
ing of some future event.*
5. La/psed legacies. — Lapse is the failure of a testa-
mentary gift, generally caused by the death of the donee
prior to that of the testator. But a legacy may lapse
after the death of the testator, by reason of a contingency
upon which the vesting is conditioned ; so that a general
legacy which never vests is deemed a lapsed legacy,
whether the lapse occurs before or after the testator's
death.*
' 3 Redf. Wills, pp. 215, 216; O'Hara's "Wig. Wills, p. 261; 1 Sch.
Pers. Prop., pp. 739, 740; Dayt. Surr., p. 387, et seq.
' Will. Exrs., p. 358, et seq.; 1 Soh. Pers. Prop., p. 738; 1 Eop. Leg.,
645.
' Citations last supra.
* O'Hara's Wig Wills, p. 416; 2 Redf. Wills, p. 157, et seq.; 1 Soh.
Pers. Prop., p. 735; Dayt. Surr., pp. 388-391; 3 Wms. Exrs., 1084;
Fisk V. The Attorney General, Law Rept. 4 Eq., 521; In re Lewes'
246 ABATEMENT, ADEMPTION, ETC. [ § 132
Where the legacy is to several persons jointly, a lapse
will not occur unless all the donees die prior to the death
of the testator ; but it is otherwise if the legatees take
as tenants in common.' And a bequest to a class, as to
the children of A. , whether he be alive or dead, will not
lapse so long as any one of the class survives. '
The lapsed legacy will either fall into the residuum, or
be undisposed of by the will and subject to the law of
distributions. The first alternative will be preferred in
construing the will, partial intestacy not being favored
by the courts.*
It should be noticed that there is an important distinc-
tion between personal, and real, estate in regard to the
devolution of void and lapsed legacies ; the former, it is
generally held, fall into the residuum, while the latter de-
scend to the heirs.'
§ 132. Abatement; ademption^ payment and satis-
faction.
Trasts, Law Rep. 11 Eq., 336; Elliott v. Davenport, 1 P. Wms., 83;
Corbyn v. French, 4 Ves., 418; Wentworth's Exrs. 2 PhiU., 361.
' Citations last supra. And see Buffar v. Bradford, 8 Atk., 320 ;
Paye v. Paye, 2 P. Wms., 489; Gardner v. Printup, 3 Barb., 88, 89 ;
Man V. Man, 3 Str., 905; Bagwell v. Dry, 1 P. Wms., 700; 3 Id., 400.
' 2 Eedf. Wills, p. 169; Shuttleworth v. Greaves, 4 Mylne & C, 35;
Doe d. Stewart v. SheflSeld, 13 East, 536; Anderson v. Parsons,
Greenl., 486; Sparhawk v. Buell, 9 Vt., 41; Hooker v. Gentry, 3
Mete. (Ky.), 463; Knight v. WaU, Dev. & B. (N. C.) L., 135; Stires v.
Van Rensselaer, 2 Bradf. Burr., 173; Carver v. Oakley, 4 Jones (N. C),
Eq., 85; Hawkins v. Everett, 5 Id., 45.
' Eedf. Wills, pp. 117, 126; Dayt. Burr., pp. 439, 440; supra, § 131,
sub. 3, and cases cited.
* Redf. WUls, pp. 117, 136; Cox v. Harris, 17 Md., 23, 31; Brown v.
Higgs, 4Ves., 708, n. b.; Tongue v. Nutwell, 13 Md., 415; Faust's
Adin'rx v. Birner, 30 Mo., 414.
§ 132.J abatement; ademption. 247
I. Abatement.
We have seen that one of the limitations to the abso-
lute ownership of property, or, in other words, absolute
property in things, is the liability of one's property to
appropriation in satisfaction of his just debts.' The
application of this principle to legacies involves their par-
tial or total abatement when the assets are insufficient to
pay all the debts. The order of abatement is, first, gen-
eral legacies ; second, if there still be a deficiency, the
demonstrative and specific legacies. Demonstrative lega-
tees must first look to the demonstrative fund for pay-
ment ; but if this fund prove insufficient for the purpose,
the deficiency, in common with general legacies, will be
a charge upon the general fund. A "demonstrative
legacy," it is said, "has the priority of right to the fund
out of which it is directed to be paid, as against all other
claims except those of creditors. " " A specific legacy is
only liable to abatement in case of a deficiency of assets
to pay all the debts, after abatement in full of general
and demonstrative legacies.'
As already shown, it is not liable to contribution
towards a deficiency of assets to pay all the legacies in
fuU/
II. Ademption.
Used in this connection, ademption means the revoca-
tion or taking away of a legacy. Specific legacies are
• Supra, § 5, sub. 5.
' Redf. Wills, pp. 141, 143; "Will. Exrs. p. 383; O'Hara's Wig. WiUs.
p. 353, et seq.; SeUon v. Watts, 7 Jur. N. S., 134; 9 Weekly Eepr., 847.
> Will. Exrs., p. 382; Redf. Surr., p. 331.
* Supra, ^ ISO.
248 ADEMPTioir. [§l;-i2.
adeemed when the subject of the gift is wholly lost,
destroyed, or disposed of by the testator during his life ;
or when its form is so changed as not to remain in specie. '
An exception to this rule is found in cases where the
change in the subject of the bequest is effected by oper-
ation of law, instead of the act of the testator, or through
other agency.'
The question of ademption of general legacies is ordi-
narily connected with advancements and portions.
While the intention of the testator must govern, courts of
equity incline to treat advancements to a child by a
father, or one in loco parentis, as_ an ademption of a gen-
eral legacy theretofore given by his will, to the extent of
the amount advanced.' In cases of doubtful intention,
the courts have received parol evidence, not for the pur-
pose of directly affecting the will, or of varying or con-
tradicting the written instrument, but to establish inde-
' 2 Eedf. Wills, p. 431, et seq.; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop. 740, 741; O'Hara's
Wig Wills, p. 361; WiU. Exrs. p. 351; Ashburner v. McGuire, Br. C.
C, 108; Durant v. Friend, 5DeGex & Sm., 343; Ford v. Ford, 3 Fos-
ter (N. H), 212; Walton T. Walton, 7 Johns. Ch., 258, 262; McKinnon
V. Thompson, 3 Johns. Ch., 307; Badrick v. Stevens, 3 Br. C. C, 431;
Eider v. Wager, 2 P. Wms., 329, 330; Donahue v. Lea, 1 Swan
(Tenn.), 119; Havens v. Havens, 1 Sandf. Ch., 324; Smith v. Jones, 4
Ohio, 115.
' Eedf. WiUs, p. 434, and notes; Partridge v. Partridge, Cas. 1
Talb., 226; Shaftsbury v. Shaftsbury, 2 Vern., 747; Dingwell v. As-
kew, 1 Cox, 427; Richards v. Humphreys, 15 Pick., 133, 135.
• 1 Sch. Pfers. Prop., pp. 741, 742; 2 Eedf. Wills, p. 439, et seq.; la
Pye, ex parte, 18 Ves., 140, 153; Hopwood v. Hopwood, 7 H. L. Cas.,
728; Warel v. Lant, Prec. Ch., 182; Jenkins v. Powell, 2 Vern., 115;
Scotton V. Scotton, 1 Str., 235; Carver v. Bowles, 2 Euss. & My.,
301; Montague v. Montague, 15Beav., 565.
§ 132.] PAYMENT AND SATISFACTION. 249
pendent facts which may aid the court in discovering the
testator's intention.'
3. Payment and Satisfaction.
"We have seen ' that a will speaks from the time of
testator's death. And it has been shown ' that if there
be nothing in the will, or extrinsic evidence, indicating
a contrary intention of the testator, a legacy will take
effect, or become vested, at his decease. It follows that
the title, or right, to such a legacy passes to the legatee
on the death of the testator, subject to the payment of
his debts ; .but the assent of the executor is requisite to
perfect the done'e's title.* The executor is regarded in
equity as a trustee, having a right to hold the legacy
until after the payment of the debts ; ° but if he unreason-
ably withholds his assent, a court of equity will compel
him to yield it.*
The rule is quite general that an executor may have
one year in which to ascertain- the condition of the
estate, nature and extent of assets, and the claims of
creditors, before being compelled to pay legacies. He
may, however, pay or deliver the legacy prior to the
expiration of the year, or other limited period ; but he
' Redf. Wills, p. 441, e.t seq.; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 743; Kirk v. Ed-
dows, 3 Hare, 509; Clark v. Jetton, 5 Sneed, 339; Paine v. Parsons,
14 Pick., 318; Swooper's Appeal, 37 Pa. St., 58; Wallace v. Pomfret,
11 Ves., 643; Hall v. HUl, 1 Dru. & War., 94, 111-133.
' Supra, § 95, with citations.
' Supra, § 131, sub. 3, with citations.
* 3 Redf. Wills, pp. 461-464; 1 Sch Pers Prop , 744; Redf. Surr.,
pp. 318; Will. Exrs., pp. 379, 380.
» Citations last supra; and see 8 Redf. Wills, p. 461, etseq.
' Citations supra; and 8 Wms. Exrs., p 1338.
250 PAYMENT AND SATISFACTION. [ § 132.
will do SO at his peril should the assets prove insufficient
to pay all the debts. '
As a general rule, a legacy by a debtor to his creditor
which is of equal or greater amount than the debt, and
of the same character, and payable after the debt
becomes due, wiU be considered as a satisfaction of it ;
but any circumstances tending to repel the presumption
that such efPect was intended by the testator, will be
available to prevent the application of the rule."
Whether a legacy by a- creditor to his debtor shall be
regarded as a release or discharge of the debt, will
depend upon the intention of the testator ; and his inten-
tion must be determined by the structure and language
of the will, under settled rules of construction, aided in
doubtful cases by parol proof of circumstances whereon
to found inferences and presumptions.'
It is a common law doctrine that the appointment by
a creditor of his debtor to be his executor, operates as a
release of the debt ; and this for the reason that by a
union of the rights of debtor and creditor in one person,
the debt would no longer be the subject of an action at
' 2 Redf. Wills, pp. 465, et seq., and 457; O'Hara's Wig. Wills, p.
343; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 744-746; WiU. Exrs., pp. 377-379; 1
Pop. Leg., pp. 456, 457; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 472, 473; Coppin v. Cop-
pin, 3 P. Wms., 291, 296; Keyling's Case, 1 Eq. Cas., Abr., 239, pi.
25; Orr v. KaineS, 2 Ves., Sen., 193.
« 2 Redf. WiUs, p. 185, et seq.; 1 Id., pp., 539, 540, n. efWill. Exrs.,
p. 866; Dayt. Surr., pp. 395, 396; Williams v. Crary, 5 Cow., 370; 8
Id., 246; 4 Wend., 443.
» 2 Bedf. Wills, p. 189, et seq.; 2 Rop. Leg., 1064, 1065, 1070 ; Fitch
V. Peckham, 16 Vt., 150; Strong v. Williams, 12 Mass., 391; Van
Ripper v. Van Ripper, 1 Green, Ch., 1; Clarke v. Bogardus, 12 Wend.,
67; Zeiglpr v. Eckhert, 6 Pa. St., 13.
§ 13 3. J DISTEIBDTIVE SHARES. 251
law, the rule being that in such an action the same per-
son cannot be both plaintiEf and defendant.' But the
same rule does not apply in equity ; and there the execu-
tor is held to have paid the debt to himself, and will be
accountable for the amount, as assets in his hands, to
any party entitled to claim them.'
It should be noticed that the rule of law in question
does not apply to the appointment of the debtor as
administrator, because that is the act of the law and not
of the creditor.*
II. Distributive Shares,
§ 133. Distributiye shares defined and explained. —
In case of intestacy, after the payment of debts and
expenses of administration, the personal property of
intestate passes to his next of kin under statutes of dis-
tribution; and the several portions thus distributed con-
stitute what are known in legal parlance as ' ' distributive
shares." The statutes of distribution in the United
States are based, in large part, upon the English Statute
of Distributions, 22 and 23 Charles II., ch. 10.*
It has been shown' that the legal title to intestate's
personal property does not pass directly to the next of
' 2 Eedf. "Wffls, pp. 191, 192 ; Went. Exrs. 73, 74, 75 ; Stagg v.
Beekman, 2 Edw. Ch., 89; Berry v. Usher, 11 Ves., 87 ; Fox v. Fox,
1 Atk., 463; Needham's Case, 8 Co., 135 a; Cheetham v. Wa.rd, 1 B. &
P., 630; Waukford v. Waukford, 1 Salk., 399.
» Treakly v. Fox, 9 B. and C, 130; Strong v. Williams, 12 Mass.,
891, 393; Cloud v. Clinkinbed,rd, 8 B. Mon., 397, 399.
» Waukford v. Waukford, 1 Salk., 299, 803, 306; mpra, §§ 70, 90.
* 2 Kent Com., p. 420; 1 Sch. Pars. Prop., pp. 747-750; 3 Eedf . WiUs,
pp. 424, 425.
» Supra, § 70, and cases cited.
252 DISTRIBUTIVE SHARES. .[§133.
kin on his death; that title can accrue to them only
through the medium of an administrator. The legal
title passes to the administrator, on his appointment, in
trust for the purposes of administration ; but the next of
kin, entitled to distributive shares under the statute,
have a vested interest in the surplus after the payment of
debts and expenses of administration.
The statutes of the several States present some variety
in details, an examination of which would require more
space than the scope of this work will permit ; but the
general principles now briefly stated apply to_aU.
§ 134.J STOCK AND STOCKHOLDEKS. 253
CHAPTEE XIII.
STOCK AND STOCKHOLDERS,
Section 134. Stock, and shares of stock, defined.
135. Methods of acquiring title to stock.
136. Liability of stockholders.
137. Assets upon dissolution of the company.
"We tave already considered the organization and oliar-
acter of corporations, and incidentally therewith the
nature of stock, and the interest and rights of stock-
holders.' But the great and constantly increasing
importance of this species of personal property demands
further attention.
§ 134. Stock, and shares of stock, defined. — The
term ' ' stock ' ' is frequently used to signify money
invested in business by an individual or jBrm ; but in this
connection it means the capital of business corporations
and joint-stock companies. The money or property con-
tributed by subscribers to the fund which constitutes the
business capital of the corporation or association, is
termed "capital stock." The amount of capital stock
is generally fixed by the corporate charter, or limited by
the statutes under which the company is organized.*
' Supra, §§ 30 and 31.
» Barry Merchants' Ex. Co., 1 Sandf., Ch. 280, 305; Burrall v. Bush-
wick E. E. Co., 75 N. Y., 211; Williams v. Western Union Tel. Co.,
93 N. Y., 163, 188; Bailey v. Clark, 91 WaU., 284; Hightower v.
Thornton, 8 Ga., 486, 500; St. Joseph E. E. Co. v, Shacklett, 30
Mo., 551, 558; St. Louis Iron M., etc., Co. v. Loftin, 30 Ark., 693, 709;
Bent V. Hart, 10 Mo. App., 143, 146; Cook on Stock (3 Ed.), g§ 3, U99;
1 Potter Corp., § 254, et seq.; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 618, et seq.
254 STOCK AND 8TOCKHOLBEE8. [ § 134
The capital stock of a company is sometimes confused
in thought with the amount of its property; but the
two funds are clearly distinguishable. The capital stock
remains as fixed in the organization of the company,
unless subsequently changed in amount by authority of
statute ; but the property of the company may vary in
amount and value from time to time, as affected by the
condition of business, and by gains and losses. This dis-
tinction is emphasized by the rule that dividends can
legally be made only from net profits; that dividends
which impair the capital stock are illegal, and may be
recovered back from the stockholders.*
A share of stock embraces and represents the whole
interest of the holder in the corporation, or company,
and aU his rights growing out of the relation. These,
summarized, are a right to participate in the management
of the company, to share, in proportion to his interest in
the stock, in the profits when declared as dividends, and
to receive an aliquot part of the proceeds of the capital
and assets on dissolution of the company, after payment
of its debts.' But a shareholder, while having the rights
' Citations last supra, and Cook on Stocks (2 Ed.), §§ 546, 547;
Hughes V. Vermont Cop. Mining Co., 73 N. Y., 207, 210; Chaffee v.
Rutland B. R. Co., 55 Vt., 110; Elkins v. Camden, etc., R. R. Co., 36
N. J. Eq,, 233; Lockhart v. Van Alstyne, 31 Mich., 76; Pittsburgh,
etc., R. R. Co. V. County of Allegheny, 63 Pa. St., 126; Raib-oad Com-
pany V. Howard, 7 Wall , 392; Hastings v. Drew, 76 N. Y., 9; Gratz
V. Redd, 4 B. Mon., 178; Bank of St. Marys v. St. John, 25 Ala., 566.
» Cook on Stock (3 Ed.), § 5; 1 Potter Corp., pp. 329, 330; BurraU v.
Bush wick E. R. Co., 75 N. Y., 211; Plimpton v. Bigelow, 93 N. Y.,
593, 599; Field v. Pierce, 103 Mass., 253, 261; Jones v. Davis, 35 Ohio
St., 474, 477; Harrison v. Vines, 46 Tex., 15, 21; Fisher v. Essex Bank,
5 Gray, 373, 378; Neiler v. KeUey, 69 Pa. St., 403, 407.
§ 135.] ACQtJIEING TITLE TO STOCK. 255
now stated, has no separate legal title to the property or
profits of the corporation, until a division is made, or a
dividend declared.' The act of legally declaring a divi-
dend, in contemplation of law, has the effect of severing
the stockholder's share from the common fund of the
company, and setting it apart for his use and benefit, in
his individual right. The share thus set apart becomes
immediately a debt due from the company to the share-
holder, which he may recover by an action at law, if it
be not paid on demand.'
It should be observed, however, that the dividend of a
stockholder is applicable to a debt due from him to the
company at the time the dividend becomes payable ; and
if an action be brought for the dividend the company
may set up the debt by way of set-off or counter-claim. '
§ 135. Methods of acquiring title to stock. — There
are two general methods of acquiring stock, and thus
becoming stockholders; one by original subscription
to the stock in the formation of the company ; the other
by transfer from a stockholder.
' Cook on Stock (2 Ed ), §§ 534, 535; Beverage v. New York El. R.
R. Co., 112 N. Y., 1, 37; CuiTy v. Woodward, 44 Ala., 805; Boardman
V. Lake Shore, etc., E'y Co., 84 N. Y.,' 157; Goodwin v. Hardy,
57 Me., 143; Rand v. Hubbell, 115 Mass., 461, 474.
« Cook on Stock, (2 Ed.), §544; Boone Corp., § 125, and cases cited;
Jackson's Adm'rs v. Newark Plank Road Co , 31 N. J. Law, 377;
Westchester, etc., R. R. Co. v. Jackson, 77 Pa. St., 321; Stoddard v.
Shetucket Foundry Co., 34 Conn., 542; Hall v. Rose Hill, etc., Co., 6
Ohio St , 489; Fawcett v. Laurie, 1 Drew & Sm., 192; Dalton v. Mid-
land Counties R'y Co., 13 C. B., 474.
• Cook on Stock (2 Ed.), § 545; Hagar v. Union National Bank, 63
Me., 509; King v. Patterson, etc., R'y Co., 29 N. J. Law, 504; Sargent
V. Franklin Ins. Co., 8 Pick., 90; Bates v. New York Ins. Co., 3 Johns.
Cas., 338.
256 BTJBSOEIPTION TO SHARES. [ § 135.
1. Subscription. — The amount of capital of a private
business corporation is fixed by charter, or by its articles
of association when organized under a general statute,
and is divided into a certain number of shares. Sub-
scriptions to the shares of stock are requisite, both to
complete the organization of the company, and to furnish
the necessary capital. As the par value of the shares is
not ordinarily paid in fuU by the subscribers at first, it
becomes essential to the life of the company, and for the
security of creditors, that the subscriptions should be
binding and enforceable obligations, taking the place ^ of
the unpaid balance in making up the capital stock of the
company. And subscriptions are held to be contracts
which, when legally made, are binding and enforceable.
The rights, privileges, and benefit of membership in the
company, constitute a valid and sufiicient consideration
for the, promise of the subscriber, express or impUed ;
and the preliminary subscriptions become vested in the
company immediately upon its formation, their face
value being contributions to its capital stock.' It is a
settled rule that a subscription for shares implies a
promise to pay for them, without proof an express
promise, or of any particular consideration.'
> 1 Potter Corp., § 227, et seq.; Cook on Stock (2 Ed.), § 52, et seq.v
Boone Corp., §§ 108-111, and cases cited; Pendergast v. Turton, 1
Young & C. Oh., 97; Baltimore, etc., Turnpike Co. v. Barnes, 6-
Harris & J. (Md.), 57; Kansas City Hotel Co. v. Hunt, 57 Mo., 126;
Beecher v. Dillsbury, etc , E. R. Co., 76 Pa. St., 306; Junction, etc.,
R. E. Co. Y. Reve, 15 Ind., 236; Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Wood, 463.
' Citations last supra, and Hawley v. Upton, 102 U. S., 314; Buffalo,,
etc., E. E. Co. v. Dudley, UN. Y., 336; Waukon, etc., R. R Co. v.
Dwyer, 49 Iowa, 121; Mitchell v. Beckman, 64 Cal., 117; Merrimao,
etc., Co. V. Levy, 54 Pa. St., 227; Fry v. Lexington, etc., R. R. Co.,
2 Mete. (Ky.), 814.
§ 136. J i^rABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES. 257
While, on the one hand, the unpaid subscription may
be recovered by an action at law, on the other hand, the
subscriber is entitled to a certificate of stock represent-
ing his interest in the company. If, on demand, the
company refuses to issue the certificate, the subscriber or
stockholder may compel its issuance by a suit in equity,
provided the full capital stock has not been issued ; and
if it has been, the stockholder may recover of the com-
pany the value of the shares at the time of demand.'
2. Transfer. — It is vsrell settled that stock is personal
property, transferable, and capable of alienation and
succession, like other species of personal property, and
by the same methods. It follows, therefore, that one
may acquire title to shares, and become a shareholder,
by purchase and transfer from another.'
§ 136. liability of stockholders, and how enforced.
The several ways in which a stockholder may be liable
on his stock, wiU now be briefly noticed.
1. To the company, and its creditors. — It has already
' Cook on stock (3 Ed), §§ 60, 193; Fletcher v. McGiU, 10 N. E.,
851; Appeal of Rowley, 9 Atl. Rep,, 339; Chester Glass Co. v. Dewey,
16 Mass., 94; Fergeson v. Wilson, L. R., 3 Ch., 77; Wyman v. Am.
Powder Co., 63 Mass., 168; Finley, etc., Co. v. Hurtz, 34 Mich., 89;
McCord V. Ohio & Miss. R. R.Co , 13 Ind., 330; BuflEalo, etc., R R.
Co. V. Dudley, 14 N. Y., 336, 337; Mitchell v. Beckman, 64 Gal., 117;
Burrows v. Smith, 10 N. Y., 550.
« Cook on Stock (3 Ed.), §§ 6, 7, 331; Boone Corp., § 132; 1 Potter
Corp., § 357; Heart v. State Bank, 3 Dev. Eq., Ill; Cole v. Ryan, 53
Barb., 168; Mobile Mut; Ins. Co. v. CuUum, 49 Ala., 558; Boston
Music Hall v. Cory, 139 Mass., 435; Chouteau Spring Co. v. Harris,
30 Mo., 383; Poole v. Middleton, 39 Beav., 646 ; Brightwell v. Mal-
lory, 10 Yerg. (Tenn ), 196; Bank of Attica v. Mgfs. & Trs. Bank, 30
N. Y., 501.
17
258 UABILITT OF STOCK aOLDEES. [ | 130..
been shown tliat a stockholder is liable to tl.e coiapanj'
on bis contract for the unpaid amount of his subscription."
So, also, is he liable to the corporation creditors for sucL,
unpaid amount ; and this in virtue of the doctrine,, now
■well established, that unpaid subscriptions constit;ate a
trust fund for the benefit of the company creditors.
Courts of equity, by their flexible and efficient methods
of procedure, will always readily give their protection tO'
the rights and interests of creditors, who are a favored
class in that forum.'
The contract of subscription does not, generally,
specify a time of payment ; and hence is regarded and
treated as a promise to pay in the future at such times,
and in such parts, as the oompanj' may olBcially demand
by way of "calls." The calls, however, must be made
by the proper authorities, aild in. accordance with law,
or they wUl be invalid and unavailable.'
The authorities ai-e not in. agreement respecting the
' Supra, §§ 134, 135.
» Cook on Stock (2 Ed.), § 199, et eeq.; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 646,
et seq.; Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 Wall., 610, 620; Wood v. Duminier, II
Mason, 308; Germantown, etc., Ry Co. v. Fitler, 60 Pa. St., 134;
ffightower v. Thornton, 8 Ga., 486; Crawford v. Itolier, 39 Md.. 599}
Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S., 56; and numerous other oasesi in the same
Une.
» Cook on Stock (3 Ed.), §§ 104-116; 1 Potter Corii., § 246, et seq.;
Boone Corp., §§ 116, 118; Braddock v. PhU., etc., R. R. Co , 45 N. J.
L., 303; Banet V. Alton, etc., R. R Co., 13 111., 504; Spangler v. Ind.
& 111. Central R. R. Co , 31 lU., 276; Grosse Isle Hotel Co. v. L'.Aji-
son's Exrs., 43 N. J L., 10; s. c, 48 N. J. L., 442; Pittsburg & Cor-
nellsviUe R. R. Co. v. Clarke, 39 Pa. St , 14(5; Budd v. Multnomah St.
Ry. Co., 15 Pac. Rep., 659; Eakright v. Loganspoit & N. Ind. R. R.
Co., 13 m., 404; Johnson v. Crawfordsville R. R. Co., 11 Ind. i,80;
Fairfield C. T. Co. v. Thorp. 13 Conn., 173.
§ 136.] LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. 259
necessity of giving notice of the call to the stockholders
before bringing an action for the recovery of the amount
called for. A majority of cases hold that notice is
unnecessary in the absence of an express provision, either
in the charter of the company, the statute governing, the
by-laws, or the subscription, making notice a condition
precedent to the maintenance of an action. This holding
is based upon the ground that the contract is a promise
to pay on demand, and that the commencement of an
action is a sufficient demand. There are, however, weighty
authorities on the other side, which seem to the writer
more in accordance with sound reason, and the dictates
of justice. '
The company is not limited to an action at law for the
recovery of unpaid subscriptions, several other remedies
being available. First, a suit may be brought on the
subscription, a judgment obtained, and the stock sold on
execution to apply on the judgment. Second, the com-
pany may bring an action for a breach of the contract,
and recover as the measure of damages the difference
between the value of the stock at the subscription price,
and its market value at the date of default in making
payment. Third, there is the remedy of forfeiture of
the stock for non-payment. The common law action to
collect the subscription as a debt, and forfeiture, are the
• Carlisle v. Cahawba & Marion R. R. Co., 4 Ala. (N. S.), 70;
Wear v. Jacksonville & Savannah R. R. Co., 34 111., 593; Scarlett v.
Academy of Music, 43 Md., 203; Essex Bridge Co. v. Tuttle, 3 Vt.,
398; Spangler v. Ind. & lU. Central R. R. Co., 21 HI., 376; Rutland &
Burlington R. R. Co. v. ThraU, 35 Vt., 536; Miles v. Bough, 3 Q. B.,
845; Edinburgh, etc., Ry. v. Hibblewhite, 6 M. & W., 707; Alabama
& Florida R. R. Co. v. Rowley, 9 Fla., 508; Hughes v. Antietam Mfg.
Co., 34 Md., 316.
260 LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES. [§136.
remedies g'enerally. elected. The forfeiture may be
effected, either by what is termed a ' 'strict foreclosure, ' '
where the company takes the stock to itself, or by a
public sale thereof, and application of the proceeds in
payment of the subscription. Forfeiture, not being a
common-law remedy, is only available to the company
when authorized by statute or charter, or by consent of
the stockholders indorsed upon the certificate of stock. '
"While several remedies are open to the choice of the
company as now shown, it is held in the larger number
of cases involving the question, that forfeiture of stock
cannot be supplemented by an action at law for the
unpaid balance, if any, due on the subscription ; that the
election of forfeiture is exhaustive of remedies.* It
should be observed, however, that there are dissenting
cases, holding that after forfeiture the company may have
an action for deficiency, the same as in the case of a
mortgage foreclosure.'
' Cook on Stock (3 Ed.) §§ 121, 133, and cases cited; Chase v. East
Tenn., etc., R. R. Co., 5 Lea, 415; Band v. White Mountains R. R.
Co., 40 N. H., 79; Barton's Case, 4 DeGex & J., 46; Budd v. Mult-
nomah St. Ry. Co., 15 Pac. Rep., 659; Westcottv. Minnesota, etc., Co.,
23 Mich , 145; Perrin v. Granger, 30 Vt., 595;-Weeks v. Silver, etc.,
Co., 55 J. & S. (N. Y.), 1; Matter of Long Island R. R. Co., 19 Wend.,
87;s. c, 33 Am. Dec, 429.
» Cook on Stock (2 Ed.), g§ 124, 125; 1 Potter Corp., § 251; Boone
Corp., § 119, and cases cited; Delaware, etc., Co. v. Sanson, 1 Binn.,
70; Instone V. Frankford Bridge Co., 2 Bibb., 576; Rensselaer, etc., R.
B. Co. V. Wetsel, 21 Barb., 56; Freeman v. Winchester, 18 Miss., 577;
Mann v. Cook, 20 Conn., 178; Rutland, etc. R. R. Co. v. Thrall, 35
Vt., 536, and many other cases in the same Une.
' See Carson v. Arctic Mining Co., 5 Mich., 288; Danbury, etc , R.
R. Co. V. Wilson, 33 Conn. 435; Great Northwestern Ry. Co. v. Ken-
nedy, 4 Exch., 417, 425.
§ 136.J LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES. 261
The forfeiture of a shareholder's stock has the import-
ant effect of relieving him from liability to the creditors
of the company ; and this, even, where the debts were
contracted prior to the forfeiture of the stock. * But a
stockholder cannot, by his own wiU and act, abandon his
shares and effect a forfeiture that will discharge him from
liability on his own subscription.*
A bill in equity is the ordinary remedy of the creditor
to enforce his rights ; and it is both appropriate and eflfi-
cient, inasmuch as it brings all the parties interested in
the matter before the court, and deals with the equities.'
Other remedies, however, have been held available to
creditors. "When the stockholder is in default for non-
payment of installments after caU, he is a debtor of the
company ; and this debt, like any other, is subject to
attachment or garnishment in a suit by a creditor against
the company. And it has been held, also, that for an
unpaid subscription, after call, the creditor has a remedy
by action at law against the delinquent stockholder, who
' Cook on Stock (3 Ed.), § 127; Macauley v. Robinson, 18 La. An.,
619; Allen v. Montgomery R. R. Co., 11 Ala., 437, 450; Mills v. Stew-
art, 41 N. Y., 384; Woollaston's Case, 4 DeGex & J., 437; Ex parte,
Beresford, 2 Macn. & G., 197.
' Rockville, etc.. Turnpike Co, v. Maxwell, 2 Cranch 0. C, 451;
Sweny v. Smith. L. R. 7 Eq., 334; Stocken's Case, L. R. 3 Ch., 413;
Count Phalen's Case, L. R. 9 Eq., 107; Thomas' Case, L. R. 13 Eq.,
437; Ross v. Bank, etc., 19 Pac. Rep.. 243.
• Cook on Stock (2 Ed.), §§ 304-211; 1 Story Eq. Jur., § 350; Griffith
V. Mangam, 73 N. Y., 611; Ward v. Griswoldville Mfg. Co., 16Conn.,
593; Shickle v. Watts, 7 S. W. Rep., 374; Christenson v. Eno, 106 N.
Y., 97, 100; Crawford v. Roher, 59 Md., 590; Hightower v Thornton,
8 Ga., 486; Adler v. Milwaukee, etc., Co., 13 Wis., 57; Henry v. Ver-
million, etc., Turnpike Co , 17 Ohio, 187.
262 8TATUT0ET LIABILITY. [ § 136.
will be liable in such action to the full extent of his
unpaid subscription.'
2. Statutory liability. — Stockholders in a corporation
are liable only to the extent of the par value of their
stock, unless made so by statute for the benefit of com-
pany creditors. Additional liability for this purpose is
frequently created by charter, or by a general statute.
But such a statutory provision will be strictly construed
by the courts, in obedience to a well settled rule of con-
struction applicable to statutes in derogation of the com-
mon law.' The statutory liability, being designed for
the benefit of creditors, can be enforced by them only ;
and generally the remedy is in a court of equity.'
A court, in the exercise of its equity power, will make
a call for unpaid subscriptions, or order the payment of
the same for the benefit of creditors, when the company
unjustifiably neglects or refuses so to do, and such action
becomes necessary to meet corporate obligations. For-
tunately for the public, it is not discretionary with a
corporation, or its officers, to deprive creditors of the
relief due them in justice and equity.*
' See Cook on Stock (2 Ed.), §§ 201, 203, and cases cited.
•Bishop Wr. Laws, §§ 119, 189 a; People v. Peacock, 98 m., 172-,
O'Reilly v. Bard, 105 Pa. St., 569; Chase v. Lord, 77 N. T., 1; Gray v.
Coffin, 9 Gush., 192; Grose v. Hilt, 86 Me., 22; Dauchy v. Brown, 24
Vt , 197; Salt Lake City Nat. Bankv. Hendrickson, 40 N. J. Law, 53;
Davidson v. Kankin, 34 Cal. , 63.
• Cook on Stock (2 Ed.), §§ 218, 222, and cases cited.
« Cook on Stock, (2 Ed.) §§ 108, 207; ScoviUe v. Thayer, 105 U. S.,
143; Glenn v. Williams, 60 Md., 93; Hatch v. Dana, 101 U. S., 205;
Glenn V. Sample, 80 Ala., 159; Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 463;
Boeppler v. Menown, 7 Mo. App., 447; Curry v. Woodward, 53 Ala.,
371.
§ 136.] DEFECTIVE OEGANIZATION. 263
Receivers and assignees in bankruptcy of an insolvent
corporation, representing both the company and its credi-
tors, are clothed" with the power, and charged with the
duty, of collecting the unpaid subscriptions, so far as
may be necessary for the purpose of paying the corpo-
rate debts. And the appropriate remedy is by bill in
equity, to which all the delinquent share owners should
be made parties.'
3. Liahility from defeoti/ve organization. — To effect a
legal organization of a corporation, or a joint stock com-
pany, under statutory authority, all the essential provi-
sions of the statute must be substantially complied with ;
and for a faQure in this regard liabilities may accrue to
• stockholders which would not have arisen under a regu-
lar organization. "While, as a general rule, a subscriber
for stock cannot avail himself of a defective organization
of the company as a defense when sued for calls, nor
can the company repudiate its contracts on such ground,
both being estopped from setting up such a defense,' a
company creditor may proceed against the individual
members for the recovery of his debt. The doctrine of
estoppel does not apply to the creditor in such a case, as
he is seeking to enforce^ not to repudiate a contract.'
> Cook on Stock, (3 Ed.) § 308; High Rec, (3 Ed.) i; Nathan v.
Whitlock, 9 Paige, 153; Dayton v. Borst, 31 N. Y., 435: Mean's
Appeal, 85 Pa. St.. 75; Chandler v. Brown, 77 111., 333; Tobey v.
Russell, 9 R. I., 58; Stewart v. Lay, 45 Iowa, 604; Clarke v. Thomas,
84 Ohio St., 46; Phoenix, etc., Co. v. Badger, 67 N. Y , 394; Sawyer
V. Hoag, 17 Wall., 610, 631; Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S., 45; Pay-
eon V. Stoever, 3 Dill., 437.
' See Cook on Stock, (3 Ed.) §§ 183-186, and cases cited; Buffalo &
A. R. R. Co. V. Cary, 26 N. Y., 75.
' Lauferty v. Wheeler, 11 Abb. N. C, 838; Chafife v. Ludeling, 27
264: LIABILITT AB TO TEANSFEES. [§ 136.
But the mere fact of an irregularity in the organization,
does not necessarily render the members absolutely
liable for all the debts of the company. Each will be
liable to the extent he would have been had the original
purpose been the formation of a partnership. He wiU
not be liable on a debt contracted before he was a mem-
ber;' and it has been held that one who becomes a mem-
ber subsequently to the attempted organization, taking
no part therein, or in the management of the company,
cannot be held liable for its debts." Where, however,
a general statute authorizes the formation of companies
for the prosecution of certain kinds of business, an organ-
ization under it which does not specify its particular
business will be void as a corporation', and the members
win become liable as partners.'
4, Liability as affected hy transfers. — This topic em-
braces the liability of transferer and transferee ; and, also,
transfers made prior, and subsequent, to registration in
the corporate stock book. Shares may be transferred
at any time after the contract of subscription is made,
either before or after registration, and also either
before or after payment in part, or in whole, of
the subscription price. And where an absolute trans-
fer in good faith is made, and duly recorded in the cor-
porate stock book, the transferer is wholly relieved from
La. An., 607; National Bank, etc., v. Landon, 46 N. Y., 410, 414;
Ridenour v. Mayo, 40 Ohio St., 9.
' PuUerv. Kowe, 57 N. Y., 23.
« DeWitt V. Hastings, 69 N. Y., 518; Stafford Bank v. Palmer, 47
Conn., 443.
> Cook on Stock (3 Ed.) §§ 231-284, and cases cited.
§ 136.] LIABILITY AS TO TEAN8FEES. 265
all further liability for the subscription price.' The bur-
den thus lifted from the transferer rests thereafter upon
the transferee.'
From the rules now stated, it -would seem to follow
logically that the transferree is not liable, either to the
company for an unpaid subscription, or to creditors for
corporate debts, prior to registration of the transfer,
until which time the transferer is not relieved from
liability ; and such is the law. *
It may happen, that intermediate the contract of trans-
fer and the registration, calls will be made, or creditors'
rights intervene, and in such contingency what are the
relations, liabilities, and rights of the respective parties?
It has been shown that the transferer is, and the trans-
feree is not, liable to the company or its creditors until
registration. While this rule governs as between the
parties to the transfer on the one hand and the company
and its creditors on the other, a different relation exists
between the parties to the transfer themselves, and to
them, in that relation, equity rules apply. The trans-
feree, being the real and beneficial owner of the stock, is
' BUlingBv. Robinson, 94 N. Y., 415; Ex'rs of Gilmore v. Bank of
Cincinnati, 8 Ohio, 63, 71; Huddersfield Canal Co. v. Buckley, 7 T. R.,
86; Wakefield v. Fargo, 90 N. Y., 213; Chouteau Spring Co. v. Harris,
20Mo.,382; Allen V. Montgomery R. R. Co., 11 Ala., 437,451; Mc-
Kenzie v. Kittridge, 24 U. C. C. P., 1; Provincial Ins. Co. v. Shaw,
U. 0. Q. B., 533.
' Merimac Mining Co. v. Levy, 54 Pa. St., 327; Upton v. Hans-
brough, 3 Biss., 417; Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S., 65; HaU v. United
States Ins. Co., 5 Gill (Md.), 484; Merimac Mining Co. v. Bagley, 14
Mich., 501; Brigham v. Mead, 10 Allen, 2J5; Hartford, etc., R. R. Co.
v, Boorman, 12 Conn., 530.
• See Cook on Stock (3 Ed.), §§ 358, 260, 261, and cases cited.
5J66 LIABILITY AS TO TEANSFEES. [§ 136.
equitably bound to respond to calls aiid claims ; and hence
be may be compelled to indemnify the transferer for
aU liabilities incurred and paid by him after transfer and
prior to registration.'
While title to the stock may pass absolutely by transfer
from the vendor to the vendee, yet in the hands of the
latter it may be subject to a corporate lien for a debt due
from the former to the company at the time of the trans-
fer. It is well settled that no such lien exists at common
law ;* but it is equally weU settled that the company may
have a lien in virtue of a statute, or by charter. Eut
whether such lien may obtain by force of a by-law can-
not be considered as settled, there being a contrariety of
judicial opinion on the question.'
If a share-holder is compelled to pay a debt of the
company of which he is a member, he may maintain an
action against his co-shareholders for contribution. This
in virtue of the just demand of equity principles, based
upon the maxim that equaUty is equity. "Where several
persons are equally bound for the payment of the same
debt, and are equally relieved on its payment by one of
them, the plainest dictates of justice require that all
should contribute, each in proportion to the benefit
received by him.*
> Johnson v. Underhill, 53 N. Y., 203; Hutzler v. Lord, 64 Md., 534;
Kellogg v.. StockweU, 75111., 68; Walker v. Bartlett, 18 C. B., 845;
Brigham v. Mead, 10 AUen, 345; Griswell v. Bristowe, L. R. 3 C. P.,
113; Davis v. Haycock, L. R. 4 Exch., 371.
• Cook on Stock (3 Ed.), § 531, and cases cited, Boone Corp. § 134,
and cases cited.
« See Cook on Stock (3 Ed.), § 533, et seq.; § 532, and cases cited.
* 1 Story Eq. Jur., § 493; Pom. Eq., §§ 405, 406; Cook on Stock (?
§136.] LIABILITY OF PLEDGEES, EXE0UTOE8, ETC. 267
5. Liahility of pledgees. — A pledgee in whose name
the pledged stock stands on the corporate books is, as to
creditors of the company, the absolute owner, and
liable as such.' The pledgee may, however, avoid this
liability by having the stock registered in the name of
another person designated by him, the nominee in such
case being generally a person of no pecuniary responsi-
bility, a mere "dummy." '
6. Liability of Executors a/nd Admi/nist/rators. — ^The
liability of a shareholder at the time of his decease
devolves upon his estate in the hands of his executor or
administrator. Hence, these personal representatives
succeed to the liability of decedent, to the extent of the
property that comes to their hands for the purposes oi
administration, the same as in case of other charges
upon the estate.* And the executor or administrator
Ed.), § 237; Aspinwall v. SaccM, 57 N. Y., 331; Umsted v. Buskirk, n
Ohio St., 113; Stewart v. Lay, 45 Iowa, 604; Matthews v. Albert; 24
Md., 537; Hadley v. Eussell, 40 N. H., 109, 113; Farrow v. Bivings,
13 Rich. Eq., 35.
' Cook on Stock (3 Ed.), §§ 347, 470; PuUman v. Upton, 96 U. S..
338; Autman's Appeal, 98 Pa. St., 505; Crease v. Babcock, 51 Mass.,
535; Eosevelt v. Brown, 11 N. Y., 148; Matter of the Empire Bank,
18 N. Y., 199; Royal Bank of India's Case, L. R. 7 Eq., 91; Weiker-
sheim's Case, L. R. 8 Ch., 831; Price & Brown's Case, 3 DeGex &
Sm., 146.
» Cook on Stock (3 Ed.), §§ 347, 466, 470; Anderson, Receiver, v.
Philadelphia Warehouse Co., Ill U. S., 479; Welles v. Larrabee, 36
Fed. Rep., 866; Henkle v. Salem Mfg. Co., 39 Ohio St., 547; Newry,
etc., R'y Co. v. Moss, 14 Beav., 64; Hiatt v. Griswold, 5 Fed. Rep.,
573.
' Baird's Case, L. R. 5 Ch., 735; Thomas' Case, 1 DeGex & Sm.,
579; Evans v. Coventry, 35 L. J. Ch., 489; ExpaHe Gouthwait, 3 Mac.
& G., 187; Crandall v. Lincobi, 58 Conn., 73; Bailey v. HoUister, 26
N. Y.. 113.
268 LIABILITY OF AGENTS; ASSETS, ETC. [§137.
may become persbnallj liable upon the stock, if he appro-
priates the assets of the estate to legacies, without mak-
ing provision to meet the liability of the estate on the
stock. '
Y. lAahiliiy of Agents. — When stock is subscribed for,
or purchased, by one person as the agent of another, and
registered on the stock book of the company in the
agent's name, both the agent and the principal will be
liable to corporate creditors, who may hold either
responsible on the stock. But the agent wiU have a just
and enforceable claim against his principal for any
charges he may have been compelled to pay on such
liability."
§ 137. The assets upon dissolntion of the com-
pany. — "We have seen that the capital stock and prop-
erty of the company constitute a trust fund for the bene-
fit of creditors,' and also that the stockholders are
entitled to a distributive share of the assets upon dissolu-
tion of the company, after payment of the corporate
■debts.* The company is the trustee of this fund, and
the corporate creditors are the beneficiaries. In virtue
of the weU settled doctrine of equity, the latter may
follow and claim the trust property through aU changes
• Jeflferys v. Jefferys, 24 L. T. Eep., N. S., 177; Thomas' Case,
eiipra; Cook on Stock (3 Ed.), § 248.
• Cook on Stock (3 Ed.), § 349, and cases cited.
» Supra, § 136, sub. 1.
• Supra, § 134; and see Krebs v. Carlisle Bank, 2 Wall. (C. C), 33;
James v. Woodruff, 10 Paige, 541; Wood v. Dummer, 8 Mason, 308,
832; Heath v. Barmore, 50 N. Y., 303; Burrall v. Bushwick E. E. Co.,
75 N. Y., 311; Day v. Postal Tel. Co., 7 Atl. Eep. 608; Mamma v.
The Potomac Co., 8 Peters, 281, 286.
§137.] ASSETS UPON DISSOLUTION OF COMPANY. 269'
of form, SO long as it can be identified, and into whoso-
ever possession it may pass, except lona fide purchasers. '
If the assets are placed in the hands of any person,
official or otherwise, for distribution, they may be
reached by creditors, and also by stockholders entitled to-
a share ; the remedy of the latter being a suit in equity,
to which the company, as well as the person holding the
assets, should be made a party."
The real estate of a corporation, it is now generally
held, constitutes a part of its assets, and, on dissolution,
is available to creditors and stockholders, each in their
order, and according to their respective rights. " It should
be noticed, however, in passing, that while the weight of
authority sustains the rule as now stated, there is not
entire unanimity of adjudications on the question. And,
moreover, the decisions in some of the States are governed
by statutes which change the common law rule.
Important questions have arisen and been much dis-
cussed in regard to the sale of all the corporate property
by the directors, or in pursuance of a vote of a majority
of the stockholders against the wishes of the minority ;
and especially respecting a sale to another company and
' Story Eq. Jur., §1253; Pom. Eq., §§1048-1051, 1080; Potter Corp., §
308; Cook on Stock (3 Ed.), g§ 641, 643.
' Young V. Moses, 53 Ga., 638. For remedies in some other con-
tingencies, see Homer v. Carter, 11 Fed. Eep., 363, and Ee Pontius,
26 Hun, 233.
« Lum V. Robertson, 6 "Wall., 277; Bacon v. Robertson, 18 How. (U.
S.), 480; Robinson v. Lane, 19 Ga., 337; Lothrop v. Stedman, 13
Blatclif., 134; Blake v. Portsmouth, etc., R. R. Co., 39N. H., 435; Fox
V. Horah, 1 Ired. (N. C), 358; Curry v. Woodward, 53 Ala., 371;
Powell V. North Mo. E. R. Co., 42 Mo., 63; People v. O'Brien, 111
N. Y., 1.
270 ASSETS UPON DISSOLUTION OF COMPANY. [§137.
taking its stock in payment; or a consolidation with
another, for the purpose of dissolving the old, and form-
ing a new company. Without attempting to review the
discussions on the subject, it may be stated as settled by
the weight of authority, that neither the directors, nor a
majority of the stockholders, have power to sell all the
corporate property against the dissent of a minority, how-
ever small, unless the sale be made for the purpose of
paying the debts of the corporation, or with a view to
its dissolution and a hona fide discontinuance of the busi-
ness.' In case, however, a corporation becomes finan-
cially embarrassed, or proves a failing enterprise, it seems
that a majority of the stockholders may dispose of all the
corporate property with a view to a dissolution, even
against the dissent of a minority;" and may accept stock
of another corporation in payment. But dissenting
stockholders cannot be compelled to take the stock of
another company in payment of their interest in the
assets of the dissolved company; they are entitled to
cash.
The shares of stock in the new company thus taken in
payment for the assets of the old, may be distributed
among such of the stockholders of the old as consent to
accept them ; and the balance must be sold for cash, and
' Abbott V. American Hard Rubber Co., 83 Barb., 578; 4 Blatchf.,
489; Smith v. New York, etc., Co., 18 Abb. Pr., 419, 435; Robbina v.
Clay, 33 Me., 132; Sheldon, etc., Co. v. Eickmeyer, etc. Co., 56 How.
Pr., 71; 90 N. Y., 607; Middlesex R. R. Co. v. Boston, etc., R. R. Co.
115 Mass., 347; Keanv. Johnson, 9 N. J. Eq., 401; Erwin. v. Oregon
Ry. & Nav. Co., 27 Fed. Rep., 635; Boston, etc., R. R. Co. v. N. Y. &
N. E. R. R. Co., 13 R. I., 260. And see Cook on Stock (3 Ed.),
§§ 629, 630.
' See Lanman v. Lebanon Valley R. R. Co., 30 Pa. St., 42.
§ 137.] ASSETS UPON DISSOLUTION OF COMPANY. 271
the proceeds distributed pro rata among the dissentients
according to their respective interests in the assets of the
old company.'
' Cook on Stock (2 Ed.), § 667; State v. BaUey, 16 Ind., 46; KeUey
V. Mariposa, etc., Co., 4 Hun., 633; McCurdy v. Myers, 44 Pa. St.,
635; Ex parte Bagshaw, L. E. 4 Eq., 341; Tread well v. Salisbury
Mfg. Co., 7 Gray, 392; Black v. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 22 N, J.
Eq., 130. 415; s. c. 24 Id., 455; Buford v. Keokuk, etc., Packet Co., 8
Mo. App., 1S9.
272 MONET. [ §§ 138, 139.
CHAPTEE XIY.
MISCELLANEOTTS SPECIES OP PERSONAL PROPERTY NOT
HEREIN-BEFORE SPECIFICALLY TREATED.
Sections 138-140. Money.
141-142. Debts.
143-150. Mortgages.
151-153. Bottomry, and respondentia, bonds.
154^157. Rent.
I. Money.
§ 138. What it is. — Money, in the ordinary and
general acceptation of the term, means that which consti-
tutes the common medium of exchange in a civilized
nation. It includes coin, gold and silver and other
metals stamped by public auihority, and used as the
standard of values and medium of commerce ; and also
any currency usually and lawfully employed in business
as the equivalent of coined metals, such as bank notes
and the like.'
§ 139. Constitutional money. — It is claimed that
under certain provisions of the United States Constitution
the term "money" is limited to, or synonymous with,
' Bouv. L. Diet., "Money;" Web. Unab'gd, "Money;" BoUes on
Banks, § 83; Wharton v. Morris, 1 Dall., 124; Lee v. Biddis, Id., 175;
Hopson V. Fountain, 5 Humpb. (Tenn.), 140: Wyerv. Dorchester, etc.,
11 Cush. 51; Richard V. Bankes, 18 East, 20; Parker v. Merchant, 1
Phil. (N. C), 355; In re. Powell, Johns., 49; s. c. 5 Jur., N. S. 331;
Fryer v. Ranken, 11 Sim., 55; Vaisey v. Reynolds, 5 Russ., 12;
Jenkins v. Fowler, 63 N. H., 244; Bouv. L. Diet., "Money had and
Received." And. L. Diet. "Money."
§139.] CONSTITUTIONAL MONET. '-.■".
coin. These provisions are found in Art. I, Sees, s pnd
10. Sec. 8 confers upon Congress the power "to cmn
money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin."
Sec. 10 provides that "No State shall * * * coin
money ; emit bills of credit ; nor mal;e anything hut gold
and silver coin a tender in payment of dehts.'''' These
provisions seem to indicate that the framers of the Con-
stitution intended to make gold and silver coin the money
of the United States in exclusion of other currency, and
also the only legal tender in payment of debts. Congress
seems to have favored this view from the fact that, until
recently copper and nickel coins, although authorized to
"pass curi-ent" as are the coins of foreign nations, the
value thereof being regulated by Congress under the
power 'granted by the Constitution," were not, like
gold and silver, declared to be " legal tender in payment
of debts. ' ' ' But under the exigencies of the late civil
war Congress authorized the issuance by the government
of notes, generally known as ' ' legal tenders' ' or ' 'green-
backs," and provided in effect that these notes should
serve the same purpose as a circulating medium, and
represent the same value, as gold and silver coin of the
same denominations. The several acts of Congress known
as the "Legal Tender Acts," were passed February 25,
1862; July 11, 1862; and March 3, 1863. These acts
made the notes which they authorized ' 'receivable in pay-
ment of all loans made to the United States, and of all
duties, debts, and demands due to the United States,
except duties on imports and interest on the public debt,
« Art. I, §§ 8, 10.
» Bouv. L. Diet. "Money;" 1 Sch. Pers Prop. p. 440; Whart. Com.
Am. Law, § 413; Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall., 457.
IS
274 OONSTITTJTIONAL MONET [ § 139.
and of all claims and demands against the United States
substantially, except for interest on its coin-bearing
loans." It was further provided that these notes should
"be lawful money and legal tender in payment of all
debts, public and private, within the United States."
It is not surprising that an earnest controversy arose
in the country, and in the courts, in regard to the con-
stitutionality of the ' 'Legal Tender Acts. ' ' The Supreme
Court of the United States, in Hepbv/rn v. Griswold^
decided by a majority of one judge, that the provision
making such notes a legal tender, as to debts contracted
both before and after the enactment of the statute, was
unconstitutional. Subsequently, on the addition of two
new judges to the bench, the decision in Hepburn v.
Griswold was overruled, and the constitutionality of the
statute affirmed by a majority of one.' The State courts
furnish numerous decisions in harmony with the last cited
cases ; some in obedience to the authority of the United
States Supreme Court, and others on an independent
judgment of the law.' Nevertheless, in view of the
clear language of the Constitution, the construction
generally given it by Congress and the courts, until the
preservation of the national life required extraordinary
measures, and the divided opinion of the judges of the
United States Supreme Court, there is ground for the
opinion, widely entertained, that the Legal Tender Acts,
> 8 WaU., 603.
• Legal Tender Cases, 13 Wall., 457.
•Smith V. Smith, 1 Thomp. & Cook (N. Y.), 63; Smith v. Wood,
87 Tex., 616; Metropolitan Bank v. VanDyok 27 N. Y., 400; Schol-
lenberger v. Brinton, 53 Penn. St., 9, 100; Latham v. United States,
1 Court CI., 149; George v. Concord, 45 N. H , 484; Carpenter v.
Northfield Bank, 89 Vt., 46; and many others.
§140.] OONTEAOT PAYABLE " IN SPECIE." 275
in so far as they substitute paper for coin in payfaent of
debts generally, and make such paper legal tender, can
only be justified and sustained as a temporary measure
of controlling necessity.'
Although a debt created by a contract to pay money •
generally may, as the law now stands, be discharged by
legal-tender notes, a contract may be made expressly or
impliedly, requiring payment "in specie," or in "gold
and silver coin," under which these notes cannot be
substituted for gold and silver, and will not constitute a
legal tender."
The States, it is held, have the constitutional authority
to precribe the currency in which debts due to them-
selves for taxes may be paid,' and creditors may stipu-
late in contracts the currency in which debts due them
thereunder may, or shall, be paid. *
§ 140. Money subject to levy under execution —
Money, being personal property, is subject to levy by
execution against the property of the defendant ; and, as
a general rule, must be paid over by the oflficer as so
much money collected, without exposing it for sale.'
> 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., pp. 445-448; Whart. Com. Am. Law, § 442.
•Legal Tender Cases, 13 Wall., 457; Trebilcock v. Wilson, Id.,
687; Bronson V. Rhodes, 7 Id., 239; Hinneman v. Rosenback, 89 N.
Y., 98; Essex Co. v. Pacific Mills, 14 Allen, 389; Myers v. Kaufman,
37 Ga., 600; Bank of Commonwealth v. VanVleck, 49 Barb., 508;
Frank v, Calhoui, 59 Pa St., 381; The Surplus, etc., of the Edith, 6
Ben., 144; Bowen v. Darby, 14 Fla., 202; Maryland v, Railroad Co.,
23 Wall., 105.
' Bronson v. Rhodes. 7 Wall., 339; Carpenter v. Atherton, 25 Cal.,
564; Lane v. Gluckauf, 28 Id., 388; Linn v. Minor, 4 Nev., 462.
* Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall , 71.
» Smith's Sheriffs, etc., p. 326.
276 MONET. DEBTS. [ § 14rl.
But in the New York Code of Civil Procedure,' it is
provided that where the money levied upon consists of
gold coin, the officer must sell it like other personal
property, unless he is otherwise directed by an order of
the judge, or of the judgment in the particular cause.
Money is only subject to levy, however, when it be-
longs to the judgment debtor, and is within his control.
In obedience to this rule it has been held that money
collected on an execution, while in the hands of the col-
lecting officer, cannot be levied upon under an execution
against the person for whom it was collected, the money
not being strictly his till actually paid over.'
So as to money deposited in a bank by the judgment
debtor, for such money, under an ordinary general
deposit, becomes the property of the bank ; the relation
of debtor and creditor between the bank and the depos-
itor is created."
In application of the same rule it has been held, that
money collected by an attorney for the judgment debtor
is not subject to levy by execution against the latter,
while the money remains in the attorney's hands.*
II. BMs.
§ 141. Definition and classification. — The term
"debt" is from the Latin debere, signifying to owe; and
> § 1410.
' Dubois V. Dubois, 6 Cowen, 499; Baker v. Kenworthy, 41 N, Y.,
215; Turner v. Tendall, 1 Cranoh, 116.
• Canrole v. Cone, 4 Barb., 220; National Citizens' Bank v, Howard,
3 How. Pr. Rep. (N. S.), 513; Commercial Bank of Albany v.
Hughes, r Wend., 94.
« Maxwell v. McGee, 13 Cush., 137.
§ 141.] DEBT OF EECOKD. 277
in a general sense may be defined as that whicli is due a
person under any 'form of obligation or promise; or,
more concisely stated, that which is owed. But, in
certain species of contract the term is ordinarily used in
a more restricted sense, signifying a debt of record, or a
debt by contract under seal, termed a specialty. There
is a third and quite extensive class of debts under the
general definition above, founded on contracts not under
seal, and termed simple contract debts.'
The classification of actions, including the action of
debt, is herein omitted as properly belonging to the subject
of pleading. It does not strictly follow the above divi-
sions, and there is, moreover, a lack of uniformity in the
decisions on the subject.
The different classes of debts will now be noticed.
1. A debt of record. — This is briefly and well defined
by Blackstone, as ' 'a debt due by the evidence of a court
of record.'" And a court of record is defined by the
same author as that, "where the acts and judicial pro-
ceedings are enrolled in parchijient for a perpetual
memorial and testimony. ' ' ' With the recognition of the
fact that paper may now, as a general rule, be substi-
tuted for parchment, Blackstone' s definition is sufficiently
accurate for the present time. It must not be assumed,
however, that the mere fact that a record is kept deter-
' 1 Bouv. L. Diet., "Debt.;" 1 Soh, Pers. Prop., pp. 459-461; "Wil-
liams Pers. Prop., pp. 96, 104, 105, 109; 2 Black. Com., p. 465; 3 Id., p.
154; Gray v. Bennett, 3 Met., 523; Cable v. McCune, 26 Miss., 371;
Mildam Foundry v. Hovey, 21 Pick., 417. And. L. Diet. "Debt,"
« 2 Black. Com , p. 465.
• 3 Black. Com., pp. 24, 25.
278 DEBT OF RECORD. [ § 14:1.
mines the character of a court.' Another definition of a
court of record is furnished by Chief Justice Shaw, of
Mass., in ex parte, Gladhill," giving more fully the char-
acteristics and distinctive qualities of these courts. In
passing upon the character of the police court in Lowell,
after mentioning its organization and functions, he says :
"This indicates the establishment of a court, or judicial,
organized tribunal, having attributes and exercising
functions, independently of the person of the magistrate
designated generally to hold it, and distinguishes it from
the case of a justice of the peace, on whom, personally,
certain judicial powers are conferred by law. ' ' *
It should be noticed, also, that the character of a court,
as to whether of record or otherwise, as well as its juris-
diction, powers and functions, is often determined by
statute.
The judgment roll of a court of record was regarded
by the English common law of such high authority that
its truth could not be questioned, the settled rule and
maxim being ' 'that nothing shall be averred against a
record, nor shall any plea, or even proof, be admitted to
the contrary. " And if the existence of the record was
denied, it had to be tried by nothing but itself, on bare
inspection.* But this rule, wherever existing, does not
prevent the impeachment of a judgment for want of juris-
diction in the court which assumed to render it, or for
fraud. It is absolutely essential to the validity of a
judgment, that the court rendering it should have juris-
' See 1 Bouv. L. Diet., "Court of Record," and cases there cited.
» 8 Met., 168, 170. And. L. Diet. " Court of Record."
• See 8 Black. Com., p. 25; 1 Sch. Pars. Prop., 461, et seq.
♦ 3 Black. Com., pp. 24, 25.
§ 14rl.] DEBT OF BECOED. 279
diction, both of the subject matter, and of the parties.
Without such jurisdiction the judgment is simply a nul-
lity; and fraud vitiates everything with which it is
tainted. ' But, as a general rule, it is not competent to
show a want of jurisdiction in opposition to the recitals
in the record, provided the court be competent, by its
constitution, to decide on its own jurisdiction. There is a
distinction in this regard between courts of general, and
of special, or limited, jurisdiction. In the latter, the
record of judgment should contain all the facts essential
to confer jurisdiction ; in the former, jurisdiction will be
presumed until the contrary be shown. In Orignon v.
Astor,^ the distinction is thus stated : ' 'The true line of dis-
tinction between courts whose decisions are conclusive if
not removed to an appellate court, and those whose pro-
ceedings are nullities if the jurisdiction does not appear on
their face, is this : A court which is competent by its
constitution to decide on its own jurisdiction, and to exer-
cise it to final judgment without setting forth in its pro-
ceedings the facts and evidence on which it is rendered,
whose record is absolute verity, not to be impugned by
averment or proof to the contrary, is of th& first descrip-
tion ; there can be no judicial inspection behind the judg-
ment, save by appellate power. A court which is so con-
stituted that its judgment can be looked through for the
facts and evidence which are necessary to sustain it,
' Towns V. Springer, 9 Ga., 130; Miller v. Barlseloo, 8 Ark., 318;
Wicks V. Ludwig, 9 Cal., 173; Johnson v. Johnson, 30 111., 215; Clark
V. Bryan, 16 Md., 171; Westervelt v. Lewis, 2 McLean, 511; Bryan v.
Blythe, 4 Blackf. (Ind.)i 249; Smith v. Knowlton. 11 N. H., 191; Bar-
rett V. Crane, 16 Vt., 846.
' 2 How. 319,
280 DEBT OF EEOOED. [ § 141.
whose decision is not evidence of itself to show juris-
diction and its lawful exercise, is of the latter descrip-
tion; every requisite for either must appear on the face
of their proceedings, or they are nullities. ' ' '
In courts of general jurisdiction the question must be
raised, and the evidence showing a want of jurisdiction
produced, on the trial ; as a rule the judgment cannot be
impeached collaterally, except for fraud. '
As to whether foreign judgments, rendered by a court
of general jurisdiction, may be impeached for want of
jurisdiction, by going behind the record, the authorities
are not in agreement, so far, at least, as the judgments
of our sister States -are concerned. These States being
independent sovereignties, judgments rendered in the
courts of one State are foreign judgments in every other,
unless they are placed on an equality with domestic
judgments by the Constitution of the United States.
That instrument provides that ' ' full faith and credit
shall be given in each State to the acts, records, and
judicial proceedings of every other State ; ' ' and author-
izes Congress to prescribe the manner of proving such
acts, records and proceedings.' Under this authority
Congress provided that records and judicial proceedings,
when authenticated as directed by the act, shall receive
such faith and credit in every court within the United
States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the
' And see Bouv. L. Diet. , "Jurisdiction," suba 4 and 5 and the cases
there cited. And. L. Diet. "Jurisdiction."
« Hartman v. Ogborn, 54 Pa. St., 120; Fisk v. Miller, 30 Tex., 579;
Lewis V. Rogers, 16 Pa. St., 18; Thorn v. Newsom, 64 Tex., 161; Hall
V. Durham, 109 Ind., 434.
> Art. 4, § 1.
§ 141. J DEBT OF EECOED. 281
State from whence they are taken." Under these pro-
visions, it would seem that judgments recovered in one
State ought to have the same force and effect in every
other as domestic judgments. But the courts have not
aJl taken this view, at least in regard to discrediting the
record on the question of jurisdiction.'
If the record of a judgment in a sister State may be
attacked collaterally, and the record discredited, when it
comes under judicial cognizance in other States, a fortiori
may a judgment rendered by a court in a foreign country
be impeached in like manner and on the same grounds.
That a judgment, foreign or domestic, may be
impeached collaterally for fraud, by third parties whose
rights or interests are endangered or injured thereby, is
well settled. ' And a court of equity may vacate and set
> Act of May 26th, 1790; U. S. B. S., sec. 905.
' See Starbuck v. Murray, 5 Wend., 148; Bradshaw v. Heath, 13
"Wend., 407; HaU v. Wilhams, 6 Pick., 233; Gleason v. Dodd, 4 Met.,
333; Norwood V. Cobb, 24 Tex., 551; Knowles v. Gas Light Co., 19
Wall., 58; Kerr v. Kerr, 41 N. Y., 372; (but see Hunt v. Hunt, 73
N. Y., 317, 240); Kerr v. Coudy, 9 Bush (Ky.), 872; Pennywitv.
Foote, 27 Ohio St., 600; and Nepton v. Leaton, 71 Mo., 358; which
■discriminate in favor of domestic judgments; Newcomb v. Peck, 17
Vt., 303; Wilcox v. Kassick, 2 Mich., 165; Bimelar v. Dawson, 5111.,
-536; Roberts v. Caldwell, 5 Dana, 512; Lincoln v. Tower, 2 McLean,
473; Caughran v. Gilman, 72 Iowa, 570; Eankin v. Barnes, 5 Bush.
(Ky.), 30; Wetherill v. StiUman, 65 Pa.^St., 105; Galpin v. Page, 18
Wall., 350; and Hanley v. Donaghue, 116 U. S., 1; which give more
■effect to the provision of the U. S. Constitution and the legislation
of Congress above mentioned.
« Thompson's Appeal, 67 Pa. St, 175; Atkinson v. Allen, 13 Vt.,
■619; Hall v. Hamlin, 3 Watts (Pa), 354; People v. Phoenix Bank, 7
Bosw., 30; Lewis V. Rogers, 16 Pa. St., 18; Dixey v. Pollock, 8 Cal.
570; Willard v. Whitney, 49 Me., 235; Whetstone v. Whetstone, 31
Iowa, 376; Cowin v. Toole, Id., 513.
282 EEOOGNIZANOE. [ § 14sl.
aside a judgment, at the instance of parties or privies,
where it has been procured by collusion, and is injurious
to their interests. '
But a judgment upon the merits, by a competent court,
having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties, while unreversed, and not set aside or vacated,
is binding and conclusive upon the parties and privies,
both as to law and fact, in respect to all matters actually
litigated in the action, and also all matters which might
have been adjudicated under the pleadings.' ^
The effect of foreign judgments as res judicata is not
so well established. It is generally agreed,, however,
that foreign judgments in rem, when not impeached for
want of jurisdiction or fraud, have the same force and
effect as domestic judgments. But in respect to the
conclusiveness of foreign judgments in personam,, the
authorities are not in agreement." The scope of this
work will not permit a discussion of this point.
2. Recognizance. — A debt may also be created by
recognizance, which is an obligation entered' into before
» Field V. Flanders, 40 lU., 470; Dexter v. Voorhies, 81 N. Y., 153;
Hunt V. Hunt, 72 Id., 217; Harbaughv. Kohn, 53 Ind., 243; Harris v.
Cornell, 80 lU., 54; Doughty v. Doughty, 27 N. J. Eq.,'315; Craft v.
Thompson, 51 N. H., 536; Holland v. Trotter, 23 Gratt., 136; Graham
V. Eoberts, 1 Head, 56, 59; Huxley v. King, 40 Mich., 73.
•CampbeU v. Strong, Hemp., 285; HoUisterv. Abbott, BIN. H.,
443; Wall v. Wall, 28 Miss., 409; Warburtonv. Aken, 1 McLean, 460;
Swiggart v. Harber, 5 111., 364; LaGrange v. Ward, 11 Ohio, 257;
HammeU v. Thurmond, 17 Ark., 203; Housemire v. Moulton, 15 Ind.,
367; Hart v. Jewett, 11 Iowa, 276; Page v. Esty, 54 Me., 319; People
V. Smith, 51 Barb., 360; Gardner v. Buckbee, 8 Cow., 120; Dick v.
Webster, 6 Wis., 481; Stockton v. Ford, 18 How., 418; Mathews v.
Durgee, 17 Abb. Pr., 356; FairchUd v. Lynch, 99 N. Y., 359.
» 1 Greenl. Ev., §§ 541, 546.
§ 141.] SPECIALTY DEBTS. 283
a court or oflBcer duly authorized for that purpose, with
a condition to do, or cause to be done," some particular
act which is therein specified. This undertaking by the
cognizor is made a record of the court, and thus becomes
an obligation of record. The undertaking may be made
by bail, in civil cases, conditioned that they will pay the
debt, interest and costs recovered by the plaintiff ; and
for other purposes under statutes ; or, in criminal cases,
conditioned for the appearance of a party before the
proper court, to answer to such charges as are or shaU'be
made against him. ' A recognizance taken by a court of
inferior jurisdiction, must contain sufficient recitals in the
condition to show that the court has jurisdiction of the
subject matter, or the recognizance will be void; the
same rule applying to a recognizance as to a judgment by
such a court."
3. Specialty debts. — The second class of debts are what
are termed, in brief, specialties, that is a deed, or con-
tract under seal. It includes a sealed conveyance of real
estate; .a deed-poll, that is, a deed from one to another
who does not join in it ; an indenture, that is a deed in
which two or more persons join in mutual covenants ;
bonds; and, in short, all writings obligatory under
seal.*
' 2 Black. Com., p. 843; 2 Bouv.L. Diet, "Recognizance;" Wil-
liams' Pers. Prop., p. 105; Eace v. Mississippi, 25 Miss., 54.
» Bridge v. Ford, 4 Mass., 641; State v. Smith, 2 Me., 62; Dodge v.
KeUock, 13 Me., 136; Commonwealth v. Loveridge, 11 Mass., 337;
Vose V, Deane, 7 Mass., 280; Darling v. Hubbell, 9 Conn., 850; State
V. Whittaker, 19 La. Ann., 143; State v. Eandolph, 36 Mo., 213; Com-
monwealth V. Otis, 16 Mass., 198; Dow v. Prescott, 13 Mass., 419.
» 2 Black. Com., p. 465; Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed.), §§ 104-110; Wil-
liams Pers. Prop., p. 106; 1 Sch. Pers. Prop., p. 465; Benson v. Ben-
284: DEBTS, HOW DISCHAEGED. [ § 142.
The essentials of a valid specialty are substantially the
same as any other valid contract, with a seal added. A
specialty is regarded in law as superior to an unsealed
instrument ; and hence, if the parties to a simple con-
tract — that is an unsealed contract — enter into a spe-
cialty on the same matter, and co-extensive therewith,
the former is merged in and extinguished by the latter. '
It was an early and well established doctrine of the
common law, that a specialty cannot be varied or abro-
.gated by words, written or unwritten, if they are not
under seal. But this rule has been modified, if not
wholly reversed, as appears by modem authorities.*
4. Svrwple contract debts. — ^This is the lowest class of
contract debts, and faUs under the general definition
above given in the beginning of this section. It includes
all contracts not under seal, both oral and written, and
embraces a large proportion of the debts growing out of
the various departments of business, which furnish the
subjects of litigation.'
§ 142. Debts, how discharged. — There are various
ways in which debts may be discharged, or the debtor
released from his legal obligation ; as payment ; accord
Bon, 1 P. Wms., 130, 131; Harriot v. Thompson, Willes, 186, 189;
Laidley v. Bright, 17 W. Va., 779; Seymont v. Street, 6 Neb., 85;
Bank of United States v. DormaUy, 8 Pet., 361, 371.
' Bishop Cent. (Enl. Ed.), § 129; 1 Chit. Cont. (11 Am. Ed.), 9; Rob-
bins V. Ayers, 10 Mo., 538; Banorgee v. Hovey, 5 Mass., 11; Bhoads
V. Jones, 92 Ind., 328; Boale v. Mayor, 19 C. B. N. S., 76; Sharp v.
Gibbs, C. B. N. S., 527.
" Bishop Cont. CBnl. Ed.), §§ 180-137; Canal Co. v, Ray, 101 U. S.,
522, 527.
» 2 Black. Com., p. 466; Williams' Pers. Prop., p. 110; Bishop Cont.
(Enl. Ed.), § 168, et seq.
§ 142. J ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. 285
and satisfaction ; bankruptcy ; release ; rescission ; lapse
of time ; novation ; former recovery ; and, generally, by
performance of the condition. These wiU now be briefly
noticed.
1. Payment. — This subject has already been suffi-
ciently considered. '
2. Accord cmd satisfaction. — This is an executed
agreement between the parties, made by the debtor, and
accepted by the creditor or claimant, in satisfaction and
discharge of the original debt or damage.' A mere
unexecuted agreement by way of accord, will not dis-
charge the original obligation, nor bar an action upon it,
unless the agreement itseK is made the satisfaction. The
creditor or claimant may accept a new promise in satis-
faction of his debt or claim.* The effect of the new
agreement, whether in itself a satisfaction, is a question
of construction. If "the new promise be founded upon a
new and valid consideration, and is binding on the
original promisor, it wiU generally warrant, if not
require, a construction making the new, a satisfaction of
the old, promise;' and, as in other cases of contract, the
' Supra § 113.
» 2 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), p. 681, et aeq.; 1 Bouv. L.Dict. "Accord;"
3 Black. Com., p. 16; 2 Greenl. Ev., § 28._ And. L. Diet. "Accord."
• 2 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), p. 683; Cock v. Honychurch, T. Raym.,203;
2Keble, 690; Pey toe's Case, 9 Rep., 79 b.; Watkinson v Inglesby, 5
Johns., 386; Frost v. Johnson, 8 Ohio, 393; Woodruff v. Dobbins, 7
Blackf., 582; Ballard v. Noaks, 2 Pike, 45; Brooklyn Bank v. De-
Grauw, 23 Wend., 342; Bryant v. Proctor, 14 B. Mon., 457; Bigelow
V. Baldwin, 1 Gray, 245; Babcock v. Hawkins, 33 Vt., 561; Simmons
V. Clark, 56 Dl., 96; Pettis v. Ray, 12 R. I., 344.
* Good V. Cheeseman, 3 B. & Ad., 704; Evans v. Powis, 1 Exch.,
907; Bayley v. Homan, 3 Bing. (N. C), 631; Wentworth v. BuUen, »
B. & C, 850.
286 KELEASE. [ § 142.
intention of the parties will be influential in determining
the construction.
In case of an undisputed debt for a specific sum, or of
a claim for liquidated damages, the acceptance by the
creditor, or claimant, of a less sum in satisfaction, will
not bar an action for the balance.' If, however, the
promise of a smaller sum be made upon additional
security by a third party, or any other new and valid
consideration, the promise and payment will work a
satisfaction.'
It is held that an accord and satisfaction made before
default in payment or performance by the debtor cove-
nantor, is not a bar to an action for a subsequent breach.*
3. Banhruptcy. — This subject has been sufficiently
discussed for the present purpose, under the head of
"Insolvency,"* to which the reader is referred.
4. Release. — As ordinarily used, the term "release"
may be defined the giving up or surrender, in any man-
ner, of a claim or right. It may be effected by the vol-
untary act of the parties, intended as a surrender, or by
operation of law. * A consideration is essential to the
vahdity of a release by the act of the parties, and there
' Harriman v. Harriman, 12 Gray, 341; Bunge v. Koop, 5 Eob., 1;
Ryan v. Ward, 48 N. Y., 304; Pinnel's Case, 5 Rep., 117; Thomas v.
Heathom, 2 B. & C, 477; Blanohard v. Noyes, 3 N. H., 518; Wheeler
V. Wheeler, 11 Vt., 60; Bailey v. Day, 36 Me., 88.
» Keeler t. Salisbury, 33 N. Y., 648; 3 Pars. Cont., pp. 619, 620, and
cases there cited; 2 Greenl. Ev., § 28, and oases cited.
' Healy v. Spence, 8 Exch., 668; Mayor of Berwick v. Oswald, 1
EI. & B., 295; Kay v. Waghom, 1 Taunt., 428; Smith v. Brown, 8
Hawks, 580; Harper v. Hampton, 1 Harr. & J., 673.
« Supra, §§ 71-74.
» 2 Bouv. L. Diet., "Release;" Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed), § 850.
§ 142.J RELEASE. 28T
must, therefore, either be a consideration ia fact, or a
seal, which imports a consideration, and, as a general
rule, estops a party in law from denying it. ' But, while
the seal may estop a party in law from denying a con-
sideration, it does not estop a court of equity from look-
ing behind it for the facts, and of granting such relief as
the equities demand.' And in some of the States of the
Union, the want or failure of consideration is held to be
a good defense to an action on a specialty ; the seal being
presumptive evidence of consideration, but not conclu-
sive.' In some other States a seal is rendered unneces-
sary by statute, an unsealed, being made equally effect-
ual with a sealed, instrument.'
As instances in which a release may be effected by
operation of law, may be mentioned the case of a release
of one of two or more promisors or obligors, which
' Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed.), §§ 51, 83, 119, 374, 851, 853, 874; Harris
V. Harris, 33 Gratt., 737; Van Valkenburgh v. Smith 60 Me., 97;
Sharingtonv. Stratton, 1 Plow., 298, 309; Page v. Trufant, 3 Mass.,
159, 163; Fallows v. Taylor. 7 T. R., 475; Cooch v. Goodman, 3 Q. B.,
580; Burkholder v. Plank, 19 Smith, (Pa.), 335; Kidder v. Kidder, 38
Pa. St., 368; Seymour v. Minturn, 17 Johns., 169; Jackson v. Stack-
house, 1 Cow., 133.
» Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed.), §§ 120, 131; Listerv. Hodgson, Law Eep.,
4 Eq., 30, 36; JefEerys v. JefEerys, Craig & P., 138; Keflferv. Grayson,
76 Va., 517; Logan v. Plummer, 70 N. C, 388; Hazzard v. Irwin, 18
Pick., 95, 106; Obert v. Hammel, 3 Harr., 73; lies v. Cox, 83 Ind.,
677; Thorn v Thorn, 51 Mich., 167; Coranth v. Forsyth, 68 Ga., 560;
Hoydon v. Green, 56 Iowa, 733.
' Pierce v. Wright, 33 Tex., 631; Greathouse v. Dunlap, 3 McLean,
303; Kinnebrew v. Kinnebrew, 35 Ala., 628; Stoval v. Bamett, 4
Litt., 307; Ring v. Kelley, 10 Mo. App., 411; Campbell v. Thompkins,
5 Stew. Oh., 170; Aller v. Aller, 11 Vroom., 446.
* McKinley v. Miller, 19 Mich., 142, 151; McCurtie v. Stevens, 13
Wend., 537.
288 kelease; eescission. [§142.
operates as a discharge of all ; ' a release by one of sev.
eral joint promisees is effectual as against all;' a cove-
nant never to sue ; ' and a bond or covenant to save harm-
less and indemnify the debtor against his debt, is a
release of the debt.* And generally, whatever may be
the form, or words, of the instrument, it wiU operate as
a release, provided it clearly manifests the purpose of the
creditor to discharge the debt and the debtor.
It was a common law doctrine that an obligor could
only be released by an instrument of as high dignity as
that by which he was bound, and hence, when obligated-
under seal, he could be released only by a sealed instru-
ment. But the trend of modern authority is against
this doctrine; it being held on high authority that a
sealed obligation may be released by parol. * And it has
been held that a contract which a statute requires to be
in writing may be released by parol. '
5. Rescission. — In case of a debt arising upon contract,
the parties by mutual consent, may rescind the contract
' Lacy V. Kinnaston, 3 Salk., 398; Rex v. Bayley, 1 Car. & P., 435;
Rowley v. Stoddard, 7 Johns., 207; Willings v. Consequa, Pet. C. C,
801; Campbell v. Brown, 20 Ga., 415; United States v. Thompson,
Gilp., 614; Myrick V. Dame, 9 Cush., 348.
'Myrick v. Dame, last cited; Wilkins v. Lindo, 7 M. & W., 81;
Wild V. Williams, 6 M. & W. 490; Eastman v. Wright, 6 Pick., 816;
Bruen v. Marquand, 17 Johns., 58; Morse v. Bellows, 7 N. H., 549.
• Cuyler v. Cuyler, 3 Johns., 186; Jackson v. Stackhouse, 1 Cow.,
133; Dew v. Jeffries, Cro. Eliz., 353; White v. Dingley, 4 Mass.,
483; Reed v. Shaw, 1 Blackf., 345; Garnett v. Macon, 6 Call, 308.
* Clark V. Bush, 8 Cow., 151.
' Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed.), §§ 180-137, 852; Canal Co. v. Ray, 101 U.
S., 533, 537.
" Gross V. Nugent, 5 B. & Ad. 58, 65, 66; Cummings v. Arnold, 3
Met., 486; Stearns v. HaU, 9 Cush., 31.
§ 142. J NOVATION. 280
and thus discharge the debt. It has been held, however,
that in a contract of sale, where the property has passed,
as much formality will be required to re-vest the title in
the vendor, as against the vendee's creditors, as was nec-
essary to transfer the title to the vendee.' In case of a
fraudulent sale, the defrauded party may, on discovery of
the fraud, rescind the contract and relieve himself from
all liability thereunder, provided the parties can be placed
in statu quo."
6. Lapse of tvme. — Discharge by lapse of time has
been considered inder the head of "Limitations," ' and
requires no further discussion in this connection.
Y. Novation. — This is briefly and comprehensively
defined by Bouviere thus : "The substitution of a new
obligation for an old one, which is thereby extin-
guished. ' ' *
For the present purpose it is only necessary to notice
two kinds of novation : First, when a new debt takes the
place of an old one, thus discharging it, the debtor and
' Quincy V. Tilton, 5 Me., 277; State of Maine v. Intoxicating
Liquors, 61 Me., 520; Gleason v. Drew, 9 Me., 81;Beecherv. Mayall,
16 Gray, 376.
» Voorhies v. Earl, 2 HiU, 292; Lucy v. Bundy, 9 N. H., 278; Miner
v. Bradley, 22 Pick., 457; Coolidge v. Brigham, 1 Met., 550; Fullager
V. Eeville, 3 Hun, 600; Higham v. Harris, 108 Ind., 246; Prentiss v.
Russ, 16 Me., 30; Downer v.. Smith, 83 Vt. 1; Matterson v. Holt, 45
Vt. 3367 Water's Pat. Heating Co. v. Smith, 120 Mass. 444; Baker v.
Lever, 67 N. Y., 304; Warren v. Tyler, 81 lU., 15; Shaw v. Barhart, 17
Ind., 183; Blen v. Bear River, etc., Co.; 20 Cal., 602;Pence v. Lang-
don, 99 U. S., 578; Street v. Blay, 2 Barn. & Ad., 456; Tiede. Sales, §
163.
' Supra, g§ 118, 119.
'2Bouv. L. Diet, "Novation;" And. L. Diet. "Novation."
19
290 FOEMER EECOVEET. [ § 142.
creditor remaining the same ; and, second, when the (iebt
remains the same, but a new debtor is substituted for the
old, who is thereby discharged.
To effect a novation several things are essential ; first,
there must be an existing valid obligation, else there will
be nothing to extinguish ; second, the parties innovating
must consent to the substitution ; and, third, there must
be an express intention to innovate. An important con-
sequence of the innovation is, that the extinction of the
old debt destroys all the rights and liens thereto pertain-
ing.'
8. Former recovery. — First, what is the effect of a
judgment, as res judicata? The doctrine, stated generally,
is, that a judgment of a court of competent authority,
having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the
parties is, while unreversed, conclusive of the questions
in issue, as between the parties and privies, whether
privies in estate, in blood, or in law." From this doc-
trine, and principles herein-before stated, it follows that
when a simple contract debt, or a specialty debt, is
merged in a judgment, the original debt is extinguished.
The doctrine of res judicata as now stated, is generally
held to apply to foreign judgments vn rem, with the same
" 1 Pars. Cont. (7th Ed.), p. 217, et seq.; 2 Whart. Cont., § 852, et
seq.
'1 Bouv. L. Diet., "Former recovery;" 2 Id. "Res judicata;" 1
Greenl. Ev., § 523, et seq; 2 Pars. Cont. (7 Ed.), p. 867, et seq.; Best
Ev., pp. 574, 577, 580; Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed.), § 270; Supra, under §
141; Hollisterv. Abbott, 31 N. H., 442; WaU v. WaU, 28 Miss., 409;
Lagrange v. Ward, 11 Ohio, 257; Trammell v. Thurmond, 17 Ark.,
203; Hart v. Jewett, 11 Iowa, 276; Vandyke v. Bastedo, 15 N. J. L.,
224; Kelly v. Mize, 3 Sneed (Tenn.), 59; Pierson v. Catlin, 18 Vt., 77;
Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. , 304; Smith v. Maryland, 6 Cranch, 286.
§ 143.] MOETGAGES; 291
force and effect as to domestic ; but in regard to foreign
judgments in personam,, the authorities are not in full
agreement.' The scope of this work will not permit a
discussion of this point.
Although dealing with contracts, it may be of service
to the student to notice in this connection that a satisfied
judgment in trover, not only extinguishes the plaintiff's
claim for the injury sustained, but invests the defendant
with title to the property wrongfully converted by him. '
It may be stated generally, in conclusion, that debts
may be discharged by performance of the condition of
the obligation, whatever it may be, as the payment in
full of a money bond, or the production of a party in
court in pursuance of the exigency of a recognizance.
III. Mortgages.
% 143. Definition, and essential elements. — A chat-
tel mortgage is the transfer of the title to personal prop-
erty as security for a debt or obligation, upon condition
subsequent, express or implied, that payment of the debt
when due and payable, or discharge of the obligation,
shall operate as a defeasance and re-vest the title in the
mortgagor ; but on default of payment, or discharge of
the obligation, the title shall become absolute in the
mortgagee.' '
• 1 Greenl. Ev., §§ 541, 546.
• Bishop Non-Cont. Law, §399; Osterhout v. Roberts, 8 Cow. 43;
Foreman v. Nelson, 2 Rich. Eq., 387; Cooper v. Shepherd, 3 C. B. 266;
Rice, Robertson v. Montgomery, Rice, 87; Chartrau v. Schmidt, Id.,
239; Hepburn v. Sewell, 5 Har. & J., 311; Spivey v. Morris, 18 Ala.,
254; Smith v. Alexander, 4 Sneed, 482.
• Parshall v. Eggert, 52 Barb., 867; Porter v. Parmly, 42 How. Pr.,
292 FOEMAL KEQUISITES. [ § 144
An analysis of the definition will show the essential
elements of the mortgage in question.
1. A transfer of title to the chattels from the mort-
gagor to the mortgagee.
2. It must be intended as a security for a debt or obli-
gation.
3. The transfer of title must be upon the condition,
express or implied, that payment of the debt when due
and payable, or discharge of the obligation, shall operate
as a defeasance, and re- vest the title in the mortgagor.
4. That on default of payment, or performance of the
condition, the title shall become absolute in the mort-
§ 144. Formal requisites. — No particular form of
words is requisite to constitute a mortgage. Whatever
be the form or language of the instrument, if it shows an
intention of transferring title to the goods as security,
subject to defeasance, it wUl constitute a chattel mort-
Pa/rol chattel mortgages. — These are valid at common
445; Thomson V. Batie, 11 Neb., 147, 151; Miner v. Judson, 2 Hun,
441;Mowry V. Wood, 13 Wis. 413; Palmer v. Shirley, 16 Ind., 380;
Scott V. Henry, 13 Ark., 113; Ing v. Brown, 3 Md. Ch., 531; Carpenter
V. Snelling, 97 Mass., 453; Taber v. Hamlin, 97 Mass., 498; Smith v.
Beattie, 31 N. Y., 543; Mosley v. Crocket, 9 Rich. (S. C), Eq., 339;
Talbot V. DeForest, 3 Iowa, 586; Flanders v. Barstow, 18 Me., 857;
Conner v. Carpenter, 38 Vt., 337; Tiede Sales, § 331, et seq.
' Hart V. Burton, 7 J. J. Marsh. 333; Farmers', etc, Bank v. Lang,
87 N. Y., 209; Fowler v. Stoneman, 11 Tex., 478; Bunacleugh v. Pol-
man, 3 Daly, 236; McKnight v. Gordon, 13 Rich. Eq., 321; Moore v.
Murdock, 26 Cal., 514; Bartels v. Harris. 4 Me., 146; Barfleld v. Cole,
4 Sneed, 465; Cooper v. Brock, 41 Mich., 488.
§ 14:4.J DEFEASANCES. 293
law, but to satisfy the Statute of Frauds they must be
in writing.' And quite generally in the States of the
Union there are statutes providing, in effect, that as
against creditors and subsequent purchasers and mort-
gagees in good faith, chattel mortgages shall not be valid
without recording or filing ; which provisions, by impli-
cation, require a written instrument. But notwithstand-
ing these statutes, parol mortgages, as between the
parties, may be valid and enforceable.'
Sepa/rate Defeasomoe. — While one instrument usually
and properly contains both the grant and defeasance, the
latter may be in a separate instrument without affecting
the validity of the mortgage. But it must either be exe-
cuted at the same time, or subsequently in pursuance of
an agreement made at the same time, of the transfer of
title. When thus executed the two instruments, in vir-
tue of an elementary principle of the law of contracts,
constitute but one in contemplation of law.'
Parol defeasance. — It is a well-established common law
rule, that parol evidence is inadmissible to vary or con-
tradict a written instrument. This rule applied, an
unconditional sale cannot be converted into a conditional
transfer by parol. But equity relaxes the strict legal
rule, and receives parol evidence to show that an abso-
lute bni of sale was intended by the parties as a mortgage.
' Swpra, § 103.
' Bank of Rochester t. Jones,4 N. Y., 497; Mory v.Denny, 7Exch.,
581; Morrow v.Tumey, 35 Ala., 131; Ceas v. Bramley, 18 Hun, 187,
188; Couchman v. Wright, 8 Neb., Ij Beeman v. Lawtoa, 37 Me., 543;
May V. Estin, 3 Port., 414, 433.
» Freeman v. Baldwin, 18 Ala., 346; Bishop Cont. (Enl. Ed), g 165;
2 Pars. Cont., p. 503.
29i SUBJECTS OS' .MOETGAGES, [ § 145.
Courts of law have caught the spirit of equity which
"mitigates the rigor of the law itself," and now quite
generally admit parol evidence for the purpose of show-
ing that a written transfer of personal property, absolute
on its face, was in fact conditional, intended simply as a
defeasible security.'
There are cases, however, that adhere strictly to the
common law rule, and refuse to receive parol evidence
where the effect would be to vary or contradict the writ-
ten instrument ; while other cases confine the introduc-
tion of such evidence to cases of fraud, accident or mis-
take."
§ 145. Subjects of a chattel mortgage. — Stated
generally, all kinds of personal property, corporeal or
incorporeal, in possession or in action, may be mort-
gaged. A party may mortgage anything in which he
has a property, absolute or qualified, and which can be
the subject of an absolute sale. For examples : The
interest of a vendee in the subject of a conditional sale,
' Hodges V. Tenn. M. & F. Ins. Co., 8 N Y., 416; Coev. Cassidy, 73
N. y., 133, 187; Farrell v. Bean, 10 Md., 217; CasweU v. Keith, 12Gray,
851;Hazzardv. Loring, 10 Gush., 267; Stokes v. Hollis, 48 Ga., 262;
Todd V. Harding, 5 Ala., 698; Scott v. Henry, 13 Ark., 112; Hurford v.
Earned, 6 Greg., 362; Bartel v. Lope, Id., 321; Love v. Blair, 72Ind.,
281; Wilmerding v. Mitchell, 52 N. J. L., 476; Baboock v. Wymau,
19 How., 239; Sprigg v. Bank of Mt. Pleasant, 14 Pet., 201; Farmer
V. Grose, 42 Cal., 169; Klock v. Walter, 70 lU., 416; Heath v. Wil-
liams, 30 Ind., 495; Zuver v. Lyons, 40 Iowa, 670.
» Porter v. Nelson, 4 N. H., 130; Bassett v. Bassett, 10 N. H., 64;
Boody V. Davis, 20 N. H., 140; MoKinstry v. Conly, 12 Ala., 678;
Sewell V. Price, 33 Ala., 97; Washburn v. Menills, 1 Day, 139; Whit-
field V. Gates, 6 Jones, Eq., 136; Brainerd v. Brainerd, 15 Conn., 575;
Collins v. Tillon, 36 Conn., 368; French v. Burns, 35 Conn., 859;
€haires v. Brady, 19 Fla., 133.
§ 145.] SUBJECTS OF MOETGAGES. 295
if he be in possession of the goods ; ' an owner of a chat-
tel having a general property therein, may mortgage it,
notwithstanding another party has acquired possession
under a special title, as in case of a pledge or lien ;' grass
growing, when it is owned by one who does not also own
the land ;' a tenant in common may mortgage his undi-
vided share, subject, of course, to the rights of the other
co-tenants, whatever they may be.*
The relation of this subject to fixtures presents ques-
tions of some diificulty, owing to the peculiar character
of this species of property.' When impressed with the
character of personal property, they may be the subject
of a chattel mortgage ; and they will possess and retain
this character while removable by the tenant, or who-
ever annexed them to the land.* And it has been held,
that if a mortgage be given for the purchase price of a
chattel, the thing will remain personal property, as to
the parties to the mortgage and all others having notice
of it, although subsequently annexed to the freehold.' It
•Everett V. Hall, 67 Me., 497; Crompton v. Pratt, 105 Mass., 255;
Greenway'v. Fuller, 47 Mich., 557; Day v. Bassett, 103 Mass., 445;
Holman v. Lock, 51 Ala., 287.
' Prindell v. Grooms, 18 B. Men., 501; McCalla v. Bullock, 2 Bibb,
208; Smith v. Coolbaugh, 21 Wis., 427.
> Smith V. Jenks, 1 Denio. 580; 1 N. T., 90.
* Gaar v. Hurd, 92 111., 315; Smith v. Rice, 56 Ala., 417; Shuart v.
Taylor, 7 How. Pr., 251; Powder v. Rhea, 32 Ark., 435; Leland v.
Sprague, 28 Vt., 746; Thompson v. Spittle, 102 Mass., 207; Nichol v.
Stewart, 36 Ark., 612; Monroe v. Hamilton, 6 Ala., 326; Smith v.
Andrews, 49 111., 28; MoUne Wagon Co. v. Rummell, 2 McCrary, 301.
» See " Fixtures," supra, §§ 9, 10.
• Denham v. Sankey, 38 Iowa, 269; Smith v. Benson, 1 Hill, 176;
Goodnow V. Allen, 68 Me., 308; Lamphere v. Lowe, 3 Neb., 131, 134.
' Ford V. Cobb, 20 N. Y., 344; Corcoran v. Webster, 50 Wis., 135;
296 -, POSSESSION BY MOETGAGEE. [ § 146.
is held, however, that such a mortgage is not enforceable
against subsequent purchasers and mortgagees of the land
without notice X)i the incumbrance upon the fixture.'
And some of the decisions take the ground that where
property, personal in its nature, has become so attached
to the land that it cannot be removed without serious
injury to the freehold, the chattel mortgage upon it is
not enforceable against subsequent purchasers or mort-
gagees of the land, even though they had actual notice
of the prior incumbrance upon the fixture.*
There has been considerable discussion, and some con-
flict of judicial opinion as to whether the filing of the
mortgage will protect the mortgagee of fixtures against
subsequent purchasers or mortgagees of the real estate.
The weight of authority seems to be that it would not ;
that the constructive notice by filing will only afifect
subsequent purchasers and incumbrancers of the fixtures ;
and that nothing short of actual notice or knowledge
would be sufiicient as against subsequent purchasers and
mortgagees of the land."
§ 146. Possession of the mortgaged property.—
Upon the execution and dehvery of the mortgage, the
mortgagee is entitled to the immediate possession of the
Kinsey v. Bailey, 9 Hun, 420; Sisson v. Hubbard, 10 Hun, 420; Coman
V. Lakey, 80 N. Y., 345; Eaves v. Estes, 10 Kan., 314; Herryford v.
Davie, 102 U. S., 235; Tift v. Horton, 58 N. Y., 877.
' Coman v. Lakey, 80 N. Y.-, 345; Voorhees v. McGinnis, 48 N. Y.,
278, 287; Pierce v. George, 108 Mass., 78.
' See cases cited supra.
' Bringhoff v. Munzenmaier, 20 Iowa, 513; Richardson v. Cope-
land, 6 Gray, 536; Ford v. Cobb, 20 N. Y., 344. And see Snowdqn v.
Craig, 26 Iowa, 165; Fortman v. Goepper, 14 Ohio St., 558; Brennan
V. Whittaker, 15 Ohio St., 446.
§ 14:6.] POSSESSION BY MOETGAGEE. 297
mortgaged property, except -where the parties have
expressly agreed that the mortgagor may retain posses-
sion until default. On this rule the authorities are in
accord.' The title carries with it the right of possession,
and the mortgagee, in the absence of an agreement that
the mortgagor may retain possession, can maintain an
action of trespass or trover against any person, even the
mortgagor, who withholds or disturbs his possession.'
But where the right of possession is reserved to the
mortgagor until default, the mortgagee cannot maintain
an action for the conversion of the chattels while the
mortgagor's right continues. The action in such case
must be brought by the mortgagor, as the right to
immediate possession is requisite to the maintenance of
the action of trover.* On default of the mortgagor the
suspended right of possession vests in the mortgagee,
and if the goods are not delivered on demand, the law
will furnish him a remedy by action of replevin, ar
trover.*
' EamsdeU v. Tewksbury, 73 Me., 197; Brackett v. Bullard, 12
Met., 308; Broadhead v. McKay, 46 Ind., 595; Clark f. WMttaker, 18
Conn., 543; Ellington v. Charleston, 51 Ala., 166; Robinson v. Camp-
beU, 8 Mo., 365; McGuire v. Benoit, 3 Md., 181; Smith v. Acker, 23
Wend., 654; Wilson v. Brannan, 27 Cal., 258.
* Hathaway v Brayman, 42 N. Y., 322; Curel v. Wimder, 5 Ohio
St., 92; Simmons V. Jenkins, 76 111., 479; Calkins v. Clement, 54 Vt.,
635; Hamilton v. Mitchell, 6 Blackf., 131; Shinners v. Brill, 38 Wis.,
648; Tallman v. Jones, 13 Kan., 438; Ford v. Ransom, 39 How. Pr.,
(N. S.), 416; Pierce v. Hasbrouck, 49 111., 23.
» The cases last cited, supra; and McLeod v. Bemhold, 32 Ark.,
671.
* Robinson v. Fitch, 26 Ohio St., 659; Lindeman v. Ingham, 36
Ohio St., 1, 9; Bell v. Shrieve, 14 111., 463; Whisler v. Roberts, 19 111.,
274; Burton v. Tannehill, 6 Blackf., 470; Whitney v. Lowell, 33 Me.,
318; Hall v. Snowhill, 14 N. J. L., 8; Coty v. Barnes, 30 Vt., 78.
298 DISTINGUISHED FEOM PLEDGES. [ § 147.
The authorities warrant the statement that the mort-
gagee, by taking possession on default of the mortgagor,
acquires the right to bar the mortgagor's equity of
redemption by a sale of the mortgaged chattels; and
this without any special grant in the mortgage of power
to sell, or decree of court. The mortgagor and mort-
gagee in such case, it is held, sustain to each other a
relation equivalent to that, of pledgor and pledgee, the
mortgagee having, like the pledgee, a right to sell after
due notice to the mortgagor.'
§ 147. Mortgage distinguished from a pledge. — ^We
have seen that a conditional transfer of the title to the
property is essential to a chattel mortgage, but no such
transfer takes place in cs^se of a pledge. The pledgee
takes possession of the goods, and acquires a special
property therein, while the general property remains in
the pledgor. Default of the pledgor does not work any
change in the title of either party ; a sale of the goods by
the pledgee, on due notice to the pledgor, being the only
way in which he can render the security available for its
purpose. Whereas, on default of the mortgagor, the
title to the property becomes, at law, absolutely vested in
the mortgagee, no sale or decree of court being requisite
to effect this result."
' Charter V. Stevens, 8 Denio, 83; Patcline v. Pierce, 12 Wend.,
61, 68; Craig v. Tappin, 2 Sandf. Ch., 78, 90; Hall v. Bellows, 11 N.
J. Eq.,-888; Denny v. Faulkner, 22 Kan., 89; Broadhead v. McKay,
46 Ind.; 595; Wilson v. Brannan, 27 Cal., 258; Talman v. Smith, 89
Barb., 890; Flanders v. Chamberlain, 24 Mich., 305; Landon v.
Emmons, 97 Mass., 37.
' White V. Cole, 24 Wend., 116; Gifford v. Ford, 5 Vt., 532; Wrig'. t
V. Ross, 86 Cal., 414; Walker v. Staples, 5 Allen, 84; Conner v.
Carpenter, 28 Vt., 237; Evans v. Darlington, 5 Blackf., 320; Eastman
§148.] ' EQUITY BELIEF OF MOETGAGOB. 299
Another distinction between a mortgage and a pledge
is, that to constitute the latter, a transfer of possession
to the pledgee is essential ; while the retention of the
property by the mortgagor does not necessarily affect the
validity of the mortgage; and quite generally now a
stipulation is inserted in the mortgage reserving to the
mortgagor the right of possession till default in the
condition.'
In some of the States there are statutory provisions
for recording or filing chattel mortgages, and on com-
pliance with these provisions the mortgagor may retain
possession of the goods without endangering the security
of the mortgagee. And where such provisions do not
exist, it is generally held that retention of possession by
the mortgagor, does not invalidate the mortgage, except
as against subsequent hona fide purchasers and incum-
brancers, and creditors.'
§ 148. Equity relief of the mortgagor. — Hitherto
we have been considering chattel mortgages under the
common law. The discussion would be incomplete with-
"out some notice of the rules of equity applicable to this
species of security. At law, on default of the mort-
gagor the title to the mortgaged property becomes abso-
V. Avery, 23 Me., 348; Heyland v. Badger, 35 Cal., 404; Doak v.
Bank of the State, 6 Ired. (N. C), L., 309; Mowry v. Wood, 18 Wis.,
413.
' Parshall v. Eggert, 53 Barb., 367; Barsow v. Paxton, 5 Johns.,
258; Bucklin v. Thompson, 1 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.), 223; Letcher v.
Norton, 5 111., 575; Hull v. Camley, 3 Duer, 99.
' Morrow v. Tumey, 35 Ala., 131; Hackett v. Manlove, 14 Cal., 85;
Golden v, Cockrill, 1 Kan, 359; Johnson v. Jefries, 30 Mo., 423;
Smith V. Moore, 11 N. H., 55; Winsor v. McLeUan, 3 Story, 492.
300 DIFFEE FEOM CONDITIONAL SALES, ETO. [ § 149.
iute in the mortgagee;' the mortgagor's rights and
remedies are extinguished, notwithstanding his default
may have arisen from accident or circumstances beyond
his control; and the mortgaged property may far exceed
in value the mortgage debt. A tender of the debt in
full, with interest, would be of no avail. From the
oppressive operation of this rigorous common law rule, a
court of equity will relieve the mortgagor, by permitting
him to redeem, on making a legal tender of the debt,
principal and interest, in full.' While the law treats a
chattel mortgage as a defeasible sale of the property,
and a transfer of the title, equity regards it as a lien,
simply, giving the mortgagee a special property in the
mortgaged chattels by way of security.'
§ 149. Conditional sales with the right to re-pur-
chase, distinguished. — We are now prepared to distin-
guish between a chattel mortgage and a conditional sale
with the right to re-purchase. The features of the two
■contracts are so much alike, and the inartificial manner
in which written instruments are often drawn, that in
' Supra, § 143.
» Charter V. Stevens, 8 Denio, 83; "Wylder v. Crane, 53111., 490;
Flanders v. Barstow, 18 Me., 357; Dupuy v. Gibson, 36 lU., 197;
.■Smith V. Coolbaugh, 21 Wis., 437; Wilson v. Brannan, 27 Cal., 258;
Blodgett V. Blodgett, 48 Vt., 33; Flanders v. Chamberlain, 34 Mich.,
505; Bragleman v. Dane, 69 N. Y., 69; West v. Crary, 47 N. Y., 423.
' See cases last cited, supra; and Davis v. Hubbard, 38' Ala., 185,
189; Sidener v. Bible, 43 Ind., 230; Evans v. Merriken, 8 Gill & J., 39;
Headley V. Goundray, 41 Barb., 282; Kinna v. Smith, 2 Green., Ch.
14; Eaton v. Whiting, 3 Pick., 484; Anderson v. Baumgartner, 27
Mo., 80; Ragland v. Justices, 10 Ga., 65; Timms v. Shannon, 19 Md.,
296; Whitney V. French, 25 Vt, 663; Ellison v. Daniels, 11 N. H.,
^0; Deedly v. Oadwell, 19 Conn., 218; Hughes v. Edwards, 9
Wheat., 500.
§ 150. j FOEECLOSUEE, ETC. 301
many cases special care is required to distinguish the one
from the other. In both there is a conditional sale
which passes the title from the vendor to the vendee ;
the difference between them being that in case of a sale
with the right to re-purchase, the right must be exer-
cised, if at all, within the time limited by the contract j
while in the case of a mortgage the right of redemption
exists and may be exercised after default or condition
broken. In short, the distinguishing feature is, the
equity of redemption in the latter case, and the absence
of it, or its equivalent, in the former. It is obviously
quite 'desirable to have a test which, applied to a con-
tract of conditional sale in cases of obscurity and doubt,
wiU determine whether it is a mortgage or a sale with a
right to re-purchase. Such a test is found in answer to
the question : Was the transfer made as a security for
a debt or liability? If yea, it is a mortgage ; if nay, it is
not a mortgage, but a sale with the right of re-purchase.
The purpose of security, we have seen, is the very
essence of a mortgage ; and whatever the form of words,
if ^;he instrument manifests such intention, it may safely
be ^jronounced a mortgage.'
§ 150. Foreclosure of the equity of redemption. —
When the mortgage contains a stipulation that the mort-
gagee may seU the property on default of the mortgagor,
' Supra, §§ 143, 144; and Robinson v. Cropsey, 3 Edw., Ch. 138;
■Woodson V. Wallace, 23 Pa. St., 171; Kelly v. Thompson, 7 Watta,
401; Trucks V. Lindsay, 18 Iowa, 505; Page v. Foster, 7 N. H., 393}
Flagg V. Mann, 14 Pick.j 483; Pearson v. Seay, 35 Ala., 613; Rice v.
Rice, 4 Pick., 349; Hughes v. Sheafl, 19 Iowa, 335; Heath v. Wa-
liams, 30 Ind., 495; Glover v. Payne, 19 "Wend., 518; Cornell v. Hall,
22 Mich., 377; Kearney v. McComb, 16 N. J. Eq., 189.
302 FOEEOLOSUEE, ETO. [ § 150.
as a means of satisfying the debt ; or if, without such
stipulation, he has possession of the property after'
default, he may make an absolute sale of the same, and
thus bar the mortgagee's equity of redemption. This
procedure avoids the necessity of the more dilatory and
expensive foreclosure by bill in equity. In the absence
of statutory requirements, the mortgagee may sell the
goods at private sale, or at public auction;' but the sale
must be conducted in good faith and fairness towards the
mortgagor.'
In many of the States there are statutory provisions
authorizing the foreclosure of chattel mortgages, and
prescribing the procedure; and, in obedience to a well
settled rule, these provisions must be substantially com-
plied with in order to effect a regular and valid fore-
closure. This rule applies to courts as well as to indi-
viduals. '
Independent of statutory provisions, however, a court
of equity has power to decree a foreclosure of a chattel
mortgage.' And there may be a foreclosure in equity
notwithstanding a power of sale is contained in the
' Waite V. Dennison, 51 El., 319; Wylder v. Crane, 53 m., 490;
McConnell v. People, 84 111., 583.
' Hale V. Omaha Nat. Bank, 64 N. Y., 550; Robinson v. Bliss, 12
Mass., 428; Stoddard v. Dennison, 38 How. Pr., 296; Hall v. Ditson,
53 How. Pr., 19; Gordon v. Clapp, 113 Mass., 355; Hungate v. Rey-
nolds, 72 111., 425.
' Mossman v. Forrest, 27 Ind., 233; Cooper v. Sunderland, 8 Iowa,
114.
* Morris v. Tillson, 81 111., 607; Broadhead v. McKay, 46 Ind., 595;
Brown V. Greer, 13 Ga., 285; Hammers v. 'Dole, 61 III., 307; Dupuy
V. Gibson, 36 III., 197; Freeman v. Freeman, 17 N. J. Eq., 44; Pack-
ard V. Kingman, 11 Iowa, 219; Blakemore v. Tabor, 22 Ind., 446.
§151. J BOnOMEY, ETC., BONDS. 303
mortgage, designed as a substitute for an equity fore-
closure. '
lY. Bottorm'y, and Respondentia, Bonds.
% 151. Defined and explained A bottomry bond is
a contract by which a ship is hypothecated as a security
for money borrowed for its use, by the owner, or the
master or his agent, on maritime interest.
It is called a bottomry bond because the keel or lottom
is hypothecated as representing the whole ship, pars pro
toto.
The term "hypothecation," borrowed from the civil
law, is used to distinguish it from a chattel mortgage,
from which it differs, and from a pledge, in which the
possession of the property is given to the pledgee.
The term "maritime interest" means extraordinary
interest, which is allowable and paid on account of the
marine risk assumed by the lender. The risk arises from
certain perils enumerated in the bond, it being stipulaled
therein, that if the ship be lost in the course of the speci-
fied voyage, or during the time limited in the contract,
by any of the enumerated perils, the lender shall lose
his money, principal and interest. Thus the lender, by
assuming the risk, becomes a kind of insurer, and is per-
mitted to stipulate for a premium in the shape of extra-
ordinary interest.'
• Briggs V. Oliver, 68 N. T., 339; Rich v. Milk, 20 Barb., 616; Marx
T. Davis, 56 Miss., 745; Long Dock Co. v. Mallory, 12 N. J. Eq., 98.
• Abb. Ship. (7 Am. Ed.), p. SOS.efseg.; 2 Bouv. L. Diet., "Bottom-
ry;" 2 Pars. Cont, p. 280, et seg.; 1 Soh. Pers. Prop., p. 559, et seg.;
The Draco, 2 Sumn., 157; Thomdike v. Stone, 11 Pick.. 183; Bray v.
Bates, 9 Met.., 235.
304 HYPOTHECATION OF THE SHIP. [§152.
A respondentia contract or bond is substantially the
same as that of bottomry, except that it hypothecates
the cargo instead of the ship and its tackle.' The two
contracts may be embraced in one instrument.
It will be seen that the peculiarity of these bonds
which distinguishes them frorri other forms of security
is, that the lender assumes the risk of certain perils, and
takes the chance of losing his money with the security
in the event that the ship, or cargo, be lost by any of
the enumerated perils ; but receives for the use of his
money, and the risk assumed, maritime interest, in case
the ship or cargo — whichever be the subject of the con-
tract — escapes loss or injury from the specified perils.*
§ 152. Hypothecation by the master, or the owner.
— The master of a ship, from the nature and circum-
stances of his duties and responsibilities, is clothed with
extraordinary powers as an agent, especially when at
sea, or in a foreign port. He is often compelled to
decide and act in exigencies involving the sSfety of the
vessel and cargo, and consequently the interest of the
owners, without an opportunity of communicating with
them, and receiving special instructions for the emer-
gency. Among the powers conceded to, and exercised
by the master from an early period in the history of
• 3 Bouv. L. Diet., "Respondentia;" and authorties last supra.
' In addition to cases cited last supra, see The Cognac. 3 Hagg.
Adm., 387; Sharpley v. Hurrell, Cro. Jac, 308; Simonds v. Hodgson,.
3 Barn. & Adol., 50; Jennings v. Ins. Co. of Pa., 4 Binn , 244;
Greeley v. Waterhouse, 19 Me.,- 9; Leland v. The Ship Medora, 3
Woodb. & M., 93; The Blray v. Bates, 9 Met., 287; Thorndike v.
Stone, 11 Pick., 187; Rucher v. Conyngham, 3 Pet. Adm., 295; Th&
Mary, 1 Paine, 671; Northwestern Ins. Co. v. Seward, 36 N. Y., 139.
§152.] HYPOTHECATION, ETC. 805
navigation and maritime law, is that of hypothecating
the ship, or cargo, or both, on bottomry and respon-
dentia bonds. The power may be exercised in a foreign
port, in the absence of the owners or employers, for the
purpose of raising money for repairs or equipment, or to
enable the ship to return to her home port. But, it
must be a case of necessity, both as to the money
required, and this way of raising it ; so' that, if the
necessary amount of money can be obtained on the
credit of the owners or employers of the ship, or other-
wise, the master is not authorized to borrow it on bot-
tomry or respondentia.' '
The owners, or part owners, may hypothecate the
ship by a bottomry contract, to the extent of their
respective interests." "While ia a bottomry contract by
the owner the necessity of hypothecation is not essential
to its validity, as in case of the master, it is essential
that the lender should assume the risk, and put his
money at hazard, in order to constitute a bottomry bond
proper.' The owner may, of course, mortgage or
' Story Agen., § 116; Abb. Ship. (7 Am. Ed.), p. 203; 2 Pars. Cont.
(7 Ed), pp. 281, 284; Putnam v. The Polly, Bee Adm., 157; The
Aurora, 1 Wheat., 96; Hurry v. The John and Alice, 1 Wash., 293;
Walden v. Chamberlin, 8 Wash., 390; Crawford v. The William
Penn, Id., 484; Patton v. The Randolph, Gilp., 457; Kleimworth v.
Marrittinia, i App. Cas., 156; The Fortitude, 3 Sumn , 246; The Ship
Packet, 3 Mason, 255; The Eoyal Stuart, 33 Eng. L. & Eq., 602.
' The Duke of Bedford, 2 Hagg. Adm.. 294; The Mary, 1 Paine,
671; The Draco, 2 Sumn., 157; The Hilarity, Blatchf. & H. Adm.,
90; MiUer V; The Rebecca, Bee Adm., 151; Thorndike v. Stone, 11
Pick., 183; Greeley v. Waterhouse, 19 Me., 9.
= See The Jane, 1 Dod., 466; The Emancipation, 1 Wm. Rob., 129;
The Lord Cochrane, 2 Wm. Rob., 320; The Hunter, Ware, 341; The
Brig Atlantic, 1 Newb. Adm., 514.
20
306 MISCELLANEOUS EULES. [§163.
pledge his ship, as he could any other personal property,
subject to the common law rules applicable to such
securities.
§ 163. Miscellaneons. — There are some other rules
connected with this subject which may be conveniently
noticed in passing, without special regard to logical
arrangement.
1. "The contract of hypothecation made by the
master does not transfer the property of the ship, but
only gives the creditor a privilege or claim upon it, to be
carried into effect by legal process." '
2. The owner is not personally bound by a bottomry
bond executed by the master ; the personal remedy of
the lender being against the master, unless the bond pro-
vides for his exemption from personal liability.'
3. A bottomry bond takes precedence as a security to
every other claim for the voyage on which it is founded,
except the claim for seamen's wages, which are sacred '
' ' as long as a single plank of the ship remains. ' ' '
If the lender on bottomry discharges the wages due to
the crew, he will be entitled to the same priority and
lien on the proceeds of the ship, which they would
have.*
' Johnson V. Shippin, 2 Ld. Raym., 984; Blaine v. Ship Charles
Carter, 4 Cranch, 328; United States v. Delaware Ins. Co., 4 Wash. C.
C. 418.
» The Nelson, 1 Hagg., 169, 176; Stainbank v. Fanning, 6 Eng. L.
& Eq., 412; The Virgin, 8 Pet., 538.
» The Sidney Cove, 2 Dod., 1, 13; The Madonna D'Idra, 1 Dod.,
40; Blaine v. The Ship Charles Carter, 4 Cranch, 328; The Mary Ann,
g Jur., 9S; The Constancia, 10 Jur., 850.
•* The Kammerheive v. Eozencratz, 1 Hagg. Adm., 62; The Virgin,
8 Pet, 583.
§ 153.J MI80ELLANB0US EULES. 307
4. The bottomry bond does not vest in the lender any
absolute indelible interest in the ship ; hence, as against
subsequent purchasers or creditors it must be enforced
■within a reasonable time, or yield to their superior
equities. So, also, as to judgment creditors; if, for
example, the bottomry holder permits the ship to make
several voyages without asserting his lien, and in the
mean time other creditors levy executions upon the ship,
the holder vriU lose his lien. '
6. On the arrival of the ship in the home port, if the
loan be not paid according to its terms, the bottomry
holder has his remedy in the Court of Admiralty, by a
proceeding in rem. On the proper application to the
Court under the procedure in Admiralty, the ship wUl
be seized and held to await the adjudication of the
claims of the several parties interested, who wUl be cited
to appear before the Court, if they wish to be heard.
The Court has power to decree a sale of the ship, if
necessary, which will be conducted by the Marshal of the
District, or other proper officer, and the proceeds
brought into court for distribution among the claimants,
as justice and equity may require.'
6. It should be mentioned in this connection that a
bottomry bond may be sustained as to some of the
claims for which it was given, and held invalid as to
others ; in other words, it may be good in part, and bad
in part."
' Blaine v. The Ship Charles Carter, 4 Cranch, 888; Leland v.
Medora, 2 Woodb. & M., 93, 105; Packard v. Louisa, Id., 49; The
Chusan, 2 Story C. C, 468; The Brig Nestor, 1 Sumn., 85.
'Abb. Ship. (7 Am. Ed.), p. 333.
» The Aurora, 1 Wheat., 96; The Packet, 3 Mason, 355; The Tartar,
1 Hagg., 1; The Nelson, Id., 169; The Hero, 3 Dod., 139.
308 KENT. [ § 154.
7. "While, as a rule, the maritime interest may be
what the parties agree upon, the Court has power to
reduce it, and will do so if, under all the circumstances,
the rate be oppressive and unjustifiable. In the exer-
cise of this power, however, the Court will act with
caution, and, in the absence of fraud, will disturb the
agreement of the parties only in extreme cases, and in
obedience to the imperative demands of justice and
equity.'
Y. Bent.
§ 164. Definition and properties. — Mr. Washburn
defines rent as "a right to the periodical receipt of
money or money's worth in respect of lands, which are
held in possession, reversion or remainder, by him from
whom the payment is due. ' '" In Bouviere's Law Dic-
tionary we find the following definition : ' 'A return or
compensation for the possession of some corporeal inheri-
tance, and is a certain profit, either in money, provi-
sions, or labor, issuing out of the lands and tenements,.
in return for their use. ' ' * Careful attention to these
definitions will show that the principal and characteristic
properties of rent are, a profit to the proprietor of lands
or tenements, certain in its character or capable of being
reduced to a certainty, issuing periodically out of the
subject of the demise to or possession of the party from
whom payment is due, which must be corporeal in its-
nature. The proprietqr is called the landlord, the other
' The Zodiac, 1 Hagg., 330, 336; The Ysabel, 1 Dod., 273; The
Augusta, Id., 283; The Packet, 3 Mason, 355; Wilmer v. The Smilax„
2 Pet. Adm.,295.
s 2 Washb. Real Prop., 273.
» 2 Bouv. L. Diet., "Rent." And. L. Diet. "Rent."
§ 165. J KINDS OF BENT. 309
party, the tenant, and the profit or compensation for the
use of the premises, the rent. ' Kent cannot issue out of
a mere privilege or easement."
It is not essential to rent that the profit or compensa-
tion for the use of the land should be in money ; it may
be wheat, corn, or other produce of the land, fowls, or,
indeed, any other personal property; so, also, it may
consist in services or manual operations, rendered by the
tenant to the landlord.'
§ 155. The kinds of rent. — At common law there
are three kinds of rent, known, respectively, as rent
service, rent charge, and rent seek.
Hent service, as its name indicates, is that in which
corporal service is rendered in return or as a compensa-
tion for the use of the land ; and this kind is annexed to
and connected with a reversionary estate remaining in
the grantor.
Hent cha/rge, is where the owner of the rent has no
future interest in the land, but in his grant reserves to
himself a rent, with a clause authorizing its collection by
distress.
Rent-seek — reditus sicctis — is simply a rent reserved
by deed, without the distress clause, and which can only
be collected by an ordinary action at law.
There is another species of rent mentioned in the
books, called a fee-fa/rm rent, which is, in fact, a reut-
' 3 Kent Com., p. 460; 3 Bouv., L. Diet., "Rent;" Tayl., Land, and
Ten., § 369, et seq.; Tiede Real Prop., §§ 641-646.
' 3 Kent Com., p. 461; 2 Black. Com., p. 41; GUb. Rents, 9; Buzzard
V. Capel, 8 Bru. & C, 141.
• Authorities cited supra, under this section.
310 EEMEDT BY DISTEBS3. [§156.
charge issuing out of an estate granted in fee. It is,
therefore, omitted in the foregoing classification.'
The design and scope of this work will not justify a.
full discussion of these different species of rent, with' the
rules applicable to each. And, indeed, such discussion
would be of little benefit, by reason of the changes in the
common law, both in England and the United States.
The difference between them, so far as the remedy for
their recovery is concerned, has been abolished in Eng-
land," and generally in this country, distress for rent
being authorized if payment is not made or rendered
when due. In some of the States of the Union, how-
ever, distress for rent has been abolished by statute in
all cases.
The subject of rent is introduced and will be treated,
mainly, in its character as a chose m action, which
justifies its discussion in a treatise on Personal Property.
§ 156. Remedy by distress. — This is an ancient and
efficient remedy for the collection of rent, when avail-
able for that purpose. At common law, as we have
seen,' this remedy did not exist in case of rent-seek ; but
it has been extended by statute to aU kinds of rent, and
is now available to the landlord in most, if not all, of
the States of the Union, except those in which distress
for rent has been abolished by statute.
Originally, distress as a remedy extended to other
cases than rent in arrear, as, for example, the case of
' Authorities, su/pra, under this section.
' 4 Geo. II, c, 38.
• Supra, § 155.
§ 156.J EEMEDT BY DISTRESS. 311
cattle of a stranger found by the owner of lands on his
premises, damage feasant. The owner might distrain
the cattle as a pledge until he received satisfaction for
the injury sustained by the trespass. ' In the case of rent
in arrear, the landlord might seize any personal chattels
found on the demised premises as a pledge for the pay-
ment of the over-due rent. In both cases, and others in
which distress was allowable, the distraining party was
bound to hold the pledge until the other party, as
pledgor, saw fit to redeem it. If the other party offered
pledges for the satisfaction of the injury, or the perform-
ance of his duty, and the landlord should persist in hold-
ing the chattels distrained, the owner thereof might
recover them by writ of replevin.'
The ancient common law rule, and practice, have been
so far changed, that distress now consists of a summary
seizure and sale of the property subject to distress, to
obtain satisfaction for the injury, or payment of the
claim.
To the existence of the right of distress, and for its
exercise, there are several essential elements and rules
demanding attention.
1. There must be an actual demise, at a certain fixed
rent, or an amount th^t may be reduced to a certainty by
calculation.'
> 3 Black. Com., p. 7.
' Tayl. Land, and Ten., § 557; 3 Black Com., pp. 6, 7, and note.
•Dunk V. Hunter, 3 Bam & Adol., 333; Valentine v. Jackson, 9
Wend., 323; Grier v. Cowan, Addis., 347; Eeeves v. McKenzie, 1
Bailey, 500; Moiilton v. Norton, 5 Barb., 286; Jackson v. Smith, 1
Bay, 315; Smith v. Colson, 10 Johns., 91; Smith v. Fyler, 2 Hill, 648.
312 EIGHT OF DISTKESS. [ § 166.
2. The relation of landlord and tenant must be fully-
completed, and not merely in contemplation ; an agree-
ment for a lease wUl not suffice ; but the relation once
established, the right of distraining being incident thereto,
the landlord can only be deprived of it by a termina-
tion of the tenancy.' A parol lease will be sufficient to
create the relation and authorize a distress."
3. An unsatisfied judgment for the rent, does not, at
common law, extinguish the right of distress.' A prom-
issory note, given and accepted for the rent, will not
defeat the right of distress, unless upon agreement of the
parties to the effect that it shall so operate, or it be taken
in absolute payment.* A surrender of part of the
premises will not bar a distress as to the residue." But it
has been held, that if the landlord has treated his tenant
as a trespasser he cannot lawfully distrain, even though
the latter remains in possession down to the day of the
distress.'
4. The right of distress is canceled by a legal tender
of the amount due, although not made until after the
' Schuyler v. Leggett, 2 Cow., 660; Jack v Smith, 1 Bay, 315;
Hegan v. Johnson, 2 Taunt., 148; Bought v. Bennett, 3 Bing., 361.
' Citations last sttpra, and Cornell V. Lamb, 3 Cow., 652.
•Snyder v. Kunckleman, 3 Penn'., 490; Chapman v. Martin, 13
Johns., 240; Bautleton v. Smith, 2 Binn., 146; Bates v. Nellis, 5 Hill,
651.
'' Peters v. Newkirk, 6 Cow., 103; Snyder v. Knuckleman, 3 Perm.,
487; Harris v. Shipway, BuU. N. P., 183; Davis v. Fyde, 4 Nev. & M.,
463; Bailey v. Wright, 3 McCord, 484; Warren v. Torney, 13 Serg, &
R., 53.
' Peters v. Newkirk, 6 Cow., 103.
» Bridges v. Smyth, 2 Moore & P., 740; Jackson v. Sheldon, 6 Cow ,
103. '
§166.] EIGHT OF DISTRESS. 313
rent-day; or even not till after the commencement of
distress proceedings, provided the tender includes the
expenses of such proceedings.' But it is too late after
cattle are actually impounded, because thej'^ are then in
custody of the law.*
5. Any one of several joint tenants may distrain for
the whole rent; and may appoint an agent to do so with-
out the assent of his co-tenants.' But co-parcenors,
before partition, must all join in the proceedings ; after
partition they may severally distrain.* Tenants in com-
mon must distrain severally. '
At common law, the landlord could only distrain dur-
ing the continuance of the term, as a privity of estate
between the tenant and the distrainor was essential to
the right of distress. By statute in England,' the rule
was so changed that the distress could be made at any
time within six months next following the determination
of the lease, provided the landlord's title or interest stiU
continued, and the tenant remained in possession ; and
this statute, in substance, has quite generally been
adopted in the United States.' There are, also, various
' Williams v. Howard, 3 Munf., 277; Hunter v. Loconte, 6 Cow.,
738; Six Carpenters' Case, 8 Eep., 146, b; Hunter v. Blain, 2 Bailey,
168; Virtue v, Beasly, 2 Mood. & M. 31.
« Ladd V. Thomas, 13 Ad. & El., 117.
'Pullenv. Palmer, 3 Salk., 207; Robinson v. Hoffman, 4 Bing.,
562; Bearinger v. O'Hare, 26 Iowa, 359.
* Steadman v. Page, 1 Salk., 390; Co. Lit., 163, b.
' Whitley v. Eoberts, 1 McClel. & Y., 107; Harrison v. Bamsby, 5
Term E., 246.
» 8 Anne, o. 14.
' Terboss v. Williams, 5 Cow., 407; Christman v. Floyd, 9 Wend.,
340: Bume v. Richardson. 4 Taunt, 730; Buckup v. Valentine, 19
314 EIGHT OF DISTEESS. [ § 156.
statutory provisions on the subject of distress in the sev-
eral States of the Union, which must be consulted by
the practitioner when necessary.
Y. As a distress can only be taken for rent in arrear,
the landlord cannot legally make the seizure untU the
day following that on which it is payable, the tenant
having until the last minute of that day to make pay-
ment, and will not, therefore, be in default until the
following day." At common law, a distress for rent
cannot be made in the night, but must be a work of the
day, between sunrise and sunset."
8. In making a distress, if there be several articles in
the house subject thereto, the landlord may seize upon
any one in the name of all, with the declaration that
none shall be removed until his rent is paid; and this, it
is held, will authorize him to follow an article thereafter
removed without his consent.' The landlord, for the
purpose of making a distress, may enter into any building
through the doors and windows which are unfastened,
but if fastened, he cannot lawfully break them open. If,
however, an entrance be gained through an open outer
door, an inner may be broken for the lawful purpose in
view.*
Wend., 554; BeU v. Potter, 6 Hill, 497; Weller v. Shearman, 3 Denio,
363.
• Gano V. Hart, Hardin (Ky.), 297; Duppa v. Mayo, 1 Saun., 287;
Evan V. Herring, 27 N. J. L., 243.
» Co. Litt., 142, a; Glib. Distr., 50; Attenbergh v. People, Car. «fc
P. 212; Tutton v. Darke, 5 Hurl. & N., 654; Sherman v. Duch, 16
111., 283; Fry v. Breckinridge, 7 B. Mon., 31.
• Wood V. Munn, 5 Bing., 10; see Hutchinson v. Scott, 2 Mees. &
W., 809.
« 1 Kol. Abr., 671, 1, 7, 17; Co. Litt., 161, a; Semayn's Case, 5 Co.
§ 156.] EIGHT OF DISTRESS. 316
9. It is the general common law rule, that all the
movable goods and chattels found on the premises may
be taken' upon a distress for rent, whether they belong
to the tenant, under-tenant, or some other person.' To
this general rule, however, there are various exceptions,
both at common law and by statute ; but the exceptions
are not uniform in number or character in all the States
of the Union. It would not be profitable to notice them
in detail here, did the limitations of the work permit, as
the practitioner will necessarily acquaint himself with
the peculiar laws of his own State on the subject."
10. The goods and chattels distrained must be safely
and properly kept, the tenant duly notified of the seiz-
ure, and then, after the expiration of the time prescribed
by law, if due notice of the time and place of the sale
has been given, and the chattels have not been redeemed,
the landlord may sell them at public auction, or sufii-
cient of them to pay the rent in arrear, together with
interest and cost of distress proceedings. The place and
mode of keeping the distrained property, the notice of
seizure to, and day of grace for, the tenant, the notice
and manner of sale, and other particulars connected with
the proceedings, have varied in the course of time, and
are not at present uniform throughout the Union. But
the aim of legislation, and of the administration of the
R., 91; Williams v. Spencer, 4 Johns., 352; State v. Thackaw, 1 Bay,
358; State v. Armfield, 3 Hawks, 346.
' Spencer v. McGown, 13 Wend , 256; Holt v. Johnson, 14 Johns.,
435; Kesler v. McConachy, 1 Rawle, 485; O'Donnel v. Seybert, 13
Serg. & R., 57; Howard v. Rawsay, 7 Harr. & J. 130; Davis v.
Payne, 4 Rand., 334; Reeves v. McKenzie, 1 Bailey, 497; Blanch v.
Bradford, 38 Pa. St., 344; Stevens v. Lodge, 7 Blackf., 594.
* See 3 Kent Com., pp. 476-479.
316 OTHEE EEMEDIES. [§157,
law, is, to afford the landlord a summary, efficient
remedy for the collection of his rent, and at the same
time to protect the tenant from injustice and oppression.
On seizing the goods and chattels of the tenant, the dis-
trainor is quite generally and very properly required to
^ive notice to the former of the distress, with an inven-
tory of the articles taken, and a statement of his claim
for rent, thus affording him an opportunity of redeeming
his chattels by paying the rent and costs, or of intelli-
gently declining so to do for what he may deem suffi-
cient reasons. Five days are usually allowed by law for
redemption, and five days previous notice of the time
^nd place of sale required ; but as already stated, the
rules governing the proceedings are not uniform. '
There are some minor incidental rules connected with
-this topic, the discussion of which is necessarily omitted,
hut to these the attention of the reader will be directed
by a study of the rules and principles set forth in this
;section, and the authorities cited.
§ 157. Remedies by actions at law^ and a snit in
•equity. — For rent in arrear the landlord has a remedy
by action of debt, covenant, and assumpsit, and in
some cases by a suit in equity.
1. Action of debt. — At common law an action of debt
is, in most cases, the appropriate remedy. It is called
by this name because it is brought for the recovery of
■debt, eo nomine and m numero. In the common law
classification of actions, the term debt implies a liquid-
ated or certain sum of money due.'
' Tayl. Land, and Ten., §§ 605-614; 3 Kent Com., p. 480.
> Steph. PL (9 Am. Ed.), p. 14; Chit. PL (7 Am. Ed.), p. 123.
§ 157. j OTHER EEMEDIES. 3l7
While damages are generally awarded for the deten-
tion of the debt, they are in most cases only nominaly
and not the principal object of the action, as in cove-
nant and assumpsit.'
By this action all kinds of rent, certain in amount,
are recoverable, whether the demise be by deed or by
parol ; and whether payable in money, or produce of the
land reserved by the lease. If payable in money, the
plaintiff will recover the debt, and interest on it from
the time it became due and payable ; if payable in pro-
duce, he wiU recover its value, and interest thereon from
the stipulated time of delivery.'
As this action is founded on the privity of contract
annexed to the person in respect to the estate, and fol-
lows it when the estate is transferred, the remedy passes
with it. Hence, if the lessor grants his reversion, the
remedy follows to the grantee, and if he assigns it the
remedy passes to the assignee.'
2. Action of covenant. — This action lies for the recovery
of damages for the breach of a covenant or contract
under seal, whether express or implied, and whether
contained in a deed poll or indenture. * It is the peculiar
remedy for the breach of covenant when the damages are
' Tayl. Land, and Ten., § 615; 3 Kent Com., p. 472; McKeon v.
Whitney, 3 Denio, 453.
« Denny V. Pamell, 1 Rol. Abr., 591, L. 28; Ciheney's Case, 3 Leon.,
260; Ven Rensselaer's Ex'rs v. Jewett, 5 Denio, 135.
"Walker's Case, 3 Rep. 23 b.; Humble v. Oliver, Cro. Eliz., 328;
Howland v. Coffin, 12 Pick , 125.
« 1 Chitt. PI. (7 Am. Ed.), p. 131; Steph. PI. (9 Am. Ed.), p. 16;
Tayl. Land and Ten., § 661; Gale v. Nixon, 6 Cow., 445.
318 OTHEE EEMEDIES. [ § 157.
unliquidated, depending upon the opinion of a jury.'
But it is, in most cases, a concurrent remedy with the
action of debt.' But there are some exceptions; as, for
example, where there has been an eviction from part of
the land, the action of covenant will not lie against the
lessee, because his liability arises on his personal cove-
nant, which cannot be apportioned ; nor can a person not
a party or privy to the deed maintain an action of cove-
nant, except where the. common law rule has been
changed by statute.' It lies only in favor of a person
who is a party to the covenant, and in the name of the
covenantee, who holds the legal interest ; not in the name
of a person only beneficially interested ; nor can such
person be joined in the action.*
3. Action of assurrvpsit. — The action of assumpsit gives
still another remedy. This action lies for a breach of a
simple coni/ract, that is a contract not under seal, whether
^aroZ or written. It maybe either express or implied.
"Where there is no express promise, the law implies a prom-
ise to do that which a party is, in justice, bound to per-
form ; in other words, if the party makes no promise for
himself in such case, the law makes it for him by imputa-
tion. ' A landlord may recover in this action a reason-
' Richards v. Killam, 10 Mass., 243,247; Smith v. Stewart, 6 Johns.,
48.
' March v. Freeman, SLev., 883; Byron v. Johnson, 8 Term B., 410;
Ilartshome v. Watson, 5 Scott, 506.
» Tayl. Land, and Ten., § 663.
« Jenkins v. Norton, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.), 28; Wolf v. Washburn, 6
Cow., 201; Strohecker v. Grant, 18 Serg. & R., 237; Lord Southamp-
ton V. Brown, 6 Barn. & C, 718; Howe v. Howe, 1 N. H., 49; Berkly
V. Hardy, 5 Bam. & C, 355.
» Steph. PL (9 Am Ed.), p. 19; 1 Chit. PL (7 Am. Ed.), pp. 112, 118;
Bishop Cont. CEnl. Ed.), § 184; 2 Black. Com., p. 448.
§ 167.] SUIT IN EQUITY. 319
able satisfaction for the use and occupation of his lands
and tenements under any agreement, express or implied,
not under seal. The recovery is not for rent, techni-
cally, as in the action of debt, but an equivalent therefor,
■namely, a reasonable compensation for the use and occu-
pation of the premises. If the compensation is fixed by
agreement, it will govern the measure of damages ; if
not, the damages must be determined by proofs alAwnde. '
4. A suit in equity. — There are cases in which the law
fails to furnish the landlord an adequate remedy ; and in
such cases it is the province of equity to grant relief.*
In some of our States, it should be observed, the
powers and functions of law and equity are blended in
one tribunal. The essential distinction, however, between
law and equity is not, as many suppose, obliterated ; but,
simply, the two departments of jurisprudence are admin-
istered by one »»i the same court, instead of two
distinct and independent tribunals. Law is still law, and
equity is equity, as of old, each with its peculiar prin-
ciples and rules of administration.
And in some States, also, the common law nomencla-
ture of actions is blotted out by codes of procedure, and
all kinds are ushered into the presence of the court by
numbers, and are dressed in uniform, like the inmates of
some educational and penal institutions. But the ghosts
of common law actions wiU not all "down at the bid-
ding" of modem law reformers; for whatever the form
•-Tayl. Land, and Ten.. § 635, et seq.; 1 CJhit. PI. (7 Am. Ed.) pp.
113, 120, et seq., 377.
' See 1 Story Eq. Jur., §§ 684-687; 1 Pom. Eq. Jur., § 189; Taylor
Land, and Ten., §§ 656-660.
320 OBLIGATION TO PAT KENT, ETC. [ § 168.
of pleading, the distinguishing characteristics of each
class still confront the bench and bar, and must be under-
stood and observed in the administration of the law.
§ 158. Obligation to pay rent ; CTiction a defense. —
Where the relation of landlord and tenant exists, whether
created by specialty or simple contract, the tenant is
under obligation to pay rent, even without an express
covenant in the lease to that effect. In the absence of
an express covenant, the law will, as we have seen,'
supply an implied promise to pay, which is equally bind-
ing upon the tenant. At common law, undbr an express
covenant to pay rent, the obligation of the tenant will
continue for the term, although the tenement, in the
meantime, be destroyed by fire or other external vio-
lence, unless the lease otherwise provides." The tendency
in modern times has been to a relaxation of this severe
rule ; and in some of our States it has been changed by
statute, relieving the tenant from payment of rent there-
after, on destruction of the tenement, until the premises
are restored to a tenantable condition. Nevertheless,
prudence suggests the insertion of a provision in the lease
for the protection of the tenant in such a contingency.
The obligation of the tenant to pay rent is upon the
implied condition that he shall have the peaceable and
quiet possession and enjoyment of the demised premises,
without disturbance or eviction by the landlord ; and if
' Supra, § 157, sub. 3; and see Tayl. Land, and Ten., § 371.
' Gates V. Green, 4 Paige, 355; HoUzapfEel v. Baker, 18 Ves., 415;
Lamott V. Stenet, 1 Harr. & J., 42; Philips v. Stevens, 16 Mass., 240;.
Howard v. DooUttle, 3 Duer, 464; Willard v. Tillman, 19 Wend., 358^
8 Kent Com., p. 465, et seq.; Gibson v. Perry, 29 Mo., 245; White v,
Molyneux, 2 Ga., 124.
§ 158.] OBLIGATION TO PAT KENT, ETC. 321
sued for the rent, the landlord's breach of this covenant
will constitute a good defense. And an eviction by the
landlord from part of the premises will release the tenant
from obligation to pay rent, even on the part retained by
him ; the contract, and the consideration, being each a
unit, and indivisible by the wrongful act of the. land-
lord.'
Eviction from the whole of the demised premises by
the lawful act of a third person, has the same effect upon
the obligation of the tenant as an eviction by the land-
lord ; but not so where the eviction by a third party is
from a part, only, of the premises, in which case the
rent will be apportioned, and the tenant obliged to pay
for the portion enjoyed, by him."
Actual physical expulsion is not necessary to produce
an eviction. The tenant is entitled to the quiet, peace-
ful, and beneficial enjoyment of the premises, without
molesta,tion or annoyance from the landlord, either
directly or indirectly;- and acts by the latter which
derive the tenant of such enjoyment of the premises
will, in contemplation of law, amount to an eviction.
For example, using, or permitting the use of an apart-
' Tayl. Land, and Ten., §§ 378, 379; 3 Kent. Com., pp. 464, 465;
Pendleton v. Dyett, 4 Cow., 581; s. c, 8 Cow., 737; Hope v. Edding-
ton, Lalor, 43; Ogilvie v. Hull, 5 Hill, 53; Crommelin v. Thiess, 81
Ala., 413; Jackson v. Eddy, 13 Mo., 309; Day v. Watson, 8 Mich.,
535.
« Hegeman v.McArthur, 1 E. D. Smith. 147: Christopher v. Austin,
11 N. Y., 316; Vermilyea v. Austin, 3 E. D. Smith, 203; Carter v.
Burr, 39 Barb., 59; Blair V. Claxton, 18 N. Y., 539; Tiley v. Moyers,
43 Pa. St., 404; Stevenson v. Lambard, 8 East, 576; Hunt v. Cope,
Cowper, 343; Lawrence v. French, 35 Wend., 443; Ludwell v. New-
man*, 6 Tenn , 458.
21
822 APPOETTONMENT OF EENT. [ § 159.
ment connected with the demised premises, as a place of
resort for lewd women, thereby producing .nocturnal
noise and disturbance, has been held an eviction. '
The eviction, to constitute a valid defense to an action
for rent, must have taken place before the rent, fell due;
it wiU not, therefore, bar a recovery for rent already
due.'
§ 159. Apportionment of rent. — It is a rule of the
common law, that a unit of indebtedness, or obligation,
cannot be divided mto fractions, or " split up " as it is
generally expressed, and enforced by action in separate
parts, thereby subjecting the debtor to the trouble and
expense of several suits for the one original cause of
action. The case of rent forms an exception to this rule,
being in some instances subject to apportionment.* A
few examples will suffice for the present purpose. ^ As
rent is an incident to the reversion, whenever that is
severed, either by act of the parties or by operation of
law, the rent will follow the reversion, and become pay-
able to the assignees or owners of the respective portions
thereof.' Whenever there is a severance by act of law,
there will be an apportionment of the rent ; as upon a
descent of the reversion among heirs, or a judicial sale
' Pendleton v. Dyett, 4 Cow., 58; Cohen v Dupont, 1 Sandf , 260.
'Gilesv. Comstock, 4N. Y., 270; Kesler v. McConachy, 1 Eawle,
835; Boynton v. Bobbitt, 3 Vent., 68; Stokes v. Cooper, 4 Camp., 514;
Whitney v. Myers, 1 Duer, 267
» 3 Kent Com., pp. 469-471; Tayl. Land, and Ten., §§ 383-385.
* Nelhs V. Lothrop, 22 Wend., 121; Van Rensselaer v. Jones, 3
Barb., 643; Van Rensselaer's Ex'rs v. Gallup, 3 Denio, 454; Cuthbert
V. Kuhn, 3 Whart., 366: Farley v. Craig, 6 Halst., 262; McEUery v.
Flannagan, 1 Har. & a., 308; Van Renuaelaer t. Bradley, 3 Denio,
l.'ie, 3 Kent Com., p. 376.
§159. J APPOETIONMENT OF KENT. 323
of part of the demised premises, the tenants will be
bound to pay rent to the heirs or purchasers, respect-
ively, for the portion of the premises belonging to each.'
In case a lessor, being owner of the fee, dies after rent
becomes due, it is payable to his executors or adminis-
trators, and not to the heir at law ; but if he dies before
the rent accrues, it belongs to the heir, and not to his
executors or administrators.' Where the rent is payable
at stated periods during the term, as quarterly or
monthly, the portion due and unpaid at the lessor's
death, having, by severance from the reversion, become
a chose in action, falls into his personal estate, and hence
is payable to his executor or administrator ; while the
portipn not yet due remains an incident of the reversion,
and passes with it to the heir.
There are other species of personal property, but none
possessing peculiarities that require special treatment ; as
they present no serious diflBculties, and none that may
not be readily solved by an intelligent application of the
principles and rules developed and illustrated on the fore-
going pages.
There only remains for consideration in this treatise,
the devolution of personal property on the death of its
owner, which is the subject of the next, and last,
chapter.
> Cole v. Patterson, 25 Wend., 456; Walter v. Flint, Cro. Eliz., 743;
Linton v. Hart, 85 Pa. St., 193; Crosby v. Loop, 13 lU., 635.
' Cole V. Patterson, supra, and Duppa v. Mayo, 1 Saund. R., 887;
Barwiok v. Foster, Cro. Jac, 337; Norris v. Harrison, 8 Mad. Ch. R.,
268; Gheen v. Osbom, 17 Serg. & R,, 171; Ex parte Smyth, 1 Swanst.,
ZZi.
324 GENEEAL EULE8. [ § 160,
CHAPTEE XV.
DEYOLUTION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY ON DEATH OF
OWNER.
Section 160. General rules.
§ 160. General rules. — The owner of property, both
real and personal, when not under disability, may, by
last will and testament, determine its disposition after
his death.' Dying intestate, his real estate descends-
directly to his heirs, and his personal property, after
payment of debts and expenses of administration, passes
indirectly to his next of kin. "Who constitute heirs, and
the order of inheritance, is determined by statutes, called
statutes of descent; the next of kin, and rules of distribu-
tion, are also prescribed by statutes, called statutes of
distribution. These statutes are generally based upon
the English statutes of distribution,' and which Mr. Kent
says were borrowed from the 118th novel of Justinian.'
But, while the American statutes are based on the Eng-
lish, there are some points of difference between them;
and although the statutes in the several States of the
Union are alike in general character and policy, there are
differences among them more or less marked. It is,
therefore, impracticable to state the rules of distribution
applicable to aU parts of our national domain, without a
special examination of the local laws of each State, which
' Supra, §§ 90-95.
» 22 and 23 Charles II, ch. 10.
» 2 Kent Com., p. 422.
§ 160.J GENERAL EULES. 325
the character and scope of this work will not permit. It
may be assumed that the practitioner will be familiar
with the general principles of law on the. subject; and he
will consult the local statutes when necessary for guid-
ance in matters under consideration. '
This brief chapter closes the discussion, in outline, of
the Law of Personal Property. In taking leave of the
subject, and of his readers, the writer would fain
indulge the hope, that his earnest desire to present thi^
important branch of the law in a helpful manner, will
not be regarded- by his professional brethren as a failure.
' See 3 Kent Com., p. 420, et seq.; 1 Bouv. L. Diet., " Distribution;"
1 Soh. Pers. Prop., pp. 747-750; Williams Pers. Prop., pp. 861-368;
Goodeve Pers. Prop., p. 285, et seq.
INDEX.
[Beferences are to Pagea,]
A.
ABATEMENT.
of legacies 246,347
ABSOLUTE,
property, absolute and qualified 8
and conditional legacies . 245
ABSENCE,
of defendant from the State extends the time for
commencing action against him 215
ACCESSION,
defined 65
title to fruite! of the earth by 65, 66
title to increase of animals by 66. 67
materials of one person united to those of another., 67-70
ACCEPTANCE, (See Sales.)
offer and acceptance 145, 147-149
under the Statute of Frauds 155-158
the complement of delivery on sales 189
ACCORD AND SATISFACTION, (See Debts.)
defined; discharge of debts by 285,286
ACCOUNT,
rendition of by violator of trade-mark compelled 103
ACKNOWLEDGMENT,
of debt barred by statute of limitations .. 216-219
ACTION,
by vendor of personal property 203
by vendee of personal property 203-208
by landlord forrent inarrear 316-318
ADEMPTION,
of legacies explained 247, 248
328
INDEZ. ASS.
[References are to Pages.]
ADMINISTRATORS, (See Intestacy.)
history and incidents of the law of intestacy, and
administration 113-117
powers and duties of administrator 116
liability on decedent's subscription for stock 367
ADMIRALTY, (See Bottomry, and Respondentia, Bonds.)
remedy for holder of these bonds in court of 307
AGENT,
each partner the agent of all 40, 41
ALIEN ENEMIES.
property of liable to seizure and confiscation in
time of war , 57
testamentary incapacity of 136
ALLODIAL, (See Estate, Real and Personal.)
difference between allodial, and feudal tenure 28, 29
AMBULATORY, (See Fixtures— Wills.)
fi.xtures sometimes real, and sometimes personal
property 9
wUls are ambulatory 140
ANIMALS.
fercB naturae, reclamation of . 62, 63
title acquired by reclaimant . . 63
dividing line between wild, and tame . 63, 64
title to increase of ardmals by accession 66, 67
APPROPRIATION, (See Payment.)
of payments - 197, 198
on sale of goods not specific 168
property acquired by... 54
APPORTIONMENT,
of rent 822, 323
ARBITRATION,
provision for in contract of insurance ......... ?36, 237
ASSENT, (See Sales).
ASSETS,
of a corporation, on dissolution, a trust fund ' 268, 269
ASSIGNMENT,
as to authority of one partner to assign partnership
property 40, 41
of corporate stock by the owner 46
CAP. INDEX. 329
[References are to Pages.]
ASSIGNMENT— Confmwed.
gift of chose in action by assignment 137
equitable assignments— 127
ASSUMPSIT,
action of for rent iaarrear 818
B.
BAILMENT,
defined and explained.. 310
general property in bailor, special in bailee 310, 811
BANK NOTES,
lost or stolen, bona fide holder of protected 60, 61
BANKRUPTCY, (See Insolvency.)
BAEGAIN AND SALE, (See Sales.)
BEQUEST,
meaning and use of the term 135
BOTTOMRY, AND RESPONDENTIA, BONDS,
defined and explained 803,304
meaning of the terms "hypothecation," and "mari-
time interest" 808
hypothecation by the master, or owner 304
does not transfer property of ship 306
owner not personally bound by a bond executed Jjy
the master _ 306
the bond takes precedence as security to every other
claim for the voyage except seamen's wages... 806
as against creditors the bond must be enforced with-
in a reasonable time , 307
remedy of holder in Admiralty, by a proceeding in
rem 807
the court has power to reduce the stipulated rate
of interest .... 808
BURIAL RIGHTS, (See Moetuaey Peopeety.)
c.
CALLS, (See Stock and Stockholdees.)
CAPITAL STOCK, (See Stock and Stockholders.)
330 INDEX. CON.
CAPTURE [References are to Pages.]
title to goods captured in war .... 55
in whom, or where, the title vests 56, 57
in marine captures the property, and legality of the
seizure, determined by a prize court 57
property of alien enemies subject to seizure 57
right of seizure and confiscation not the same upon
land as in naval warfare 58
CHATTELS,
definition, and derivation, of "chattel" 25, 26
real, and personal, defined and distinguished 25, 26
wife's transferred to husband by marriage 121
CHECK,
payment by 195
CHOSES, IN POSSESSION, IN ACTION,
origin and meaning of the word "chose" . 26
in possession, and in action, what are 36, 27
wife's transferred to husband by marriage . 122, 123
CHURCH FURNITURE,
sometimes personal, and sometimes real, property;
the law governing 21, 22
rights of a pew-holder . 21,22
bells, organs, furnaces, stoves and pipes, may be-
come real property or fixtures j 22
COMMERCIAL PAPER,
warranty in the sale of 185
lost or stolen, when indorsed in blank, or payable
or indorsed to bearer, not recoverable by the
owner from a bona fide purchaser 60,61
COMMON CARRIER,
effect of deUvery to, on sale of goods .. 187
CONDITIONS, (See Sales,— Insurance.)
the several kinds, and effects, in contracts of sale.... 180
CONGRESS,
power to create corporations ;.... 42
to grant patents, and copyrights 73, 73
to establish uniform laws on the " subject of bank-
ruptcies throughout the United States" 119, 120
CONFUSION OF GOODS. (See Accession.)
COB. INDEX, 331
[References are to Pages.]
CONSIDERATION,
how failure of affects contracts of sale 170, 171
effect of illegal consideration .„ 171
new, unnecessary to validate new promise .... 219
CONSTITUTIONAL, (See Monet.)
CONTRACT,
executory, and executed 143
transfer of title by 164, 169
power of, possessed by corporations 44, 45
power of joint-stock companies to contract 49
authority of partners to bind co-partners by 40, 41
contract with alien enemies invalid 68
between the state and a patentee. 73
implied contract of auditors not to violate lecturer's
right of property in his lecture ^... 95
whether judgments are contracts 110
insurance contracts 231-234
subscription for stock a contract 156
illegal contracts of sale 179, 180
CONTRIBUTION,
between co-shareholders when one is compelled to
pay a debt of the company 266
COPYRIGHT,
defined 82
nature, and source, of the right 82, 84
how to secure the statutory right 84^87
essentials to a valid copyright 89-91
merit, or value, essential 88, 89
seditious, or Ubellous, publications, outlaws 89
immoral productions not protected 90
blasphemous publications under legal condemnation 90, 91
remedies for infringement .............. . 91
CORPORATIONS,
defined, and how created . 42
Congress, and the State legislatures, each power to
create corporations 42
classification of 43
act through their officers, and other agents 43
the officers, in a sense, superior to their principal... 43
S32
INDEX. DEB.
CReferences are to Pages.]
■CORPORATIONS— ConMwMed.
power of contract substantially the same as that of a i
natural person 44, 45
interest of individual corporators in the corporate
property 45
what the term stock, in its full import, embraces ... 45
owner of stock may assign it, and what the assignee
takes .. 46
■CORPSE, (See Mortuary Property.)
quasi property in, conferring upon relatives the right
of custody and control 23
to whom the right, and place, of burial belongs 23, 24
•CORRUPTION OF BLOOD, (See Forfeiture.)
provisions in relation to, in the Federal Constitution,
and Act of Congress , 106
■CREDITS, (See Goods, Wares, Merchandise, Etc.)
•CREDITORS, (See Debtor and Creditor.)
contracts in fraud of, voidable 178, 179
gifts prejudicial to the rights of, invalid 137- '. 29
rights of, as against. corporations, and stockholders— 257-362
COVENANT,
action of , for rent in arrear 317, 318
•COUNTERFEIT,
payment In coimterf eit biUs not good 196
■COVERTURE,
as affecting testamentary capacity. ...... 137, 138
D.
DAMAGES,
an essential element in an actionable fraud ... 175
vendee, in some cases, entitled to special . 205
DEBTS, (See Debtor AND. Creditor.)
definition, and classification, of 276, 277
a debt of record defined 277, 278
judgment roll of a court of record, authority of 278-380
distinction between courts of general, and of special,
jurisdiction S79
judgment impeachable for want of jurisdiction, or
for fraud _ 278, 279, 281
DEL. . INDEX. 333
[References are to Pages.]
VEBia— Continued.
respecting impeachment of foreign judgments . 280-28S
effect of foreign judgments as res judicata 283
debts bjr recognizance 282, 283
specialty debts explained 283,384
what are simple contract debts 284
how debts are discharged , 284, 285
by payment ^ •. 193-198
as to payment in Legal Tender notes 273, 274
by accord and satisfaction .' 285,286
by bankruptcy 117, 120
release by act of the parties, or by operation of law. 286-288
by recision of contract 288, 289
by lapse of time 213,216
bynovation; what it is. 289,290
by former recovery. 290, 291
action of debt for rent 816, 317
debt from donor to donee subject of a gift to the
latter _ 126
DEBTOR AND CREDITOR, (See Insolvency— Debts.)
question of fixtures between them and the heir or
/vendee, and the widow . 13
gifts prejudicial to creditors invalid 127-129
stockholder's liability to oreditors 257-262
assets of a corporation, on dissolution, constitute a
trust fund for the benefit of creditors 268, 369
sale of goods in fraud of creditors, invalid 178, 179
ownership of property subject to the just claims of
creditors - — 4
DEFEASANCE, (See Mortgages.)
DELIVERY,
essential to a gift 126-133
different kinds of delivery 126-188
delivery under the Statute of Frauds 158
in respect to a transfer of title 165, 166
effect of delivery to common carrier 166-187
in performance, of the contract of sale 185-189
how, and where, delivery to be made 186
delivery of insurance policy 228
82^ INDEX. EFF.
DEVISE [References are to Pages.]
testamentary disposition of real estate „ 135
DEVOLUTION,
of personal property on death of the owner 834, 385
DISCHARGE, (See Debts.)
DISTRIBUTIVE SHARES,
defined and explained 251, 353
DISTRESS, (See Rent.)
remedy of landlord for rent in arrear 310, 816
DONOR, AND DONEE, (See Gifts Inter Vivos, am>
Causa Mortis)
DOUBLE INSURANCE, (See Insurance.)
E.
EASEMENT,
grant of burial lot in a churchyard, or public ceme-
tery, generally an easement . 22
EMBLEMENTS,
defined, and doctrine of, stated 13, 14
what products the tenant may remove 14
who, and when, entitled to 15-17
incidents of 17
EMINENT DOMAIN,
power of the State to take private property for pub-
lic use ; a limitation of absolute ownership 4
ESTATE,
derivation, and meaning, of the word 28
properly applicable to real property only, but fre-
quently applied to personal, and sometimes both
to real and personal property 28, 29
the feudal tenure prevails in England; in the United
States, lands are allodial; the difference ex-
plained 28,29
when "estate" is applied to personal property, it
may represent an absolute, or qualified, interest 29
real estate of a partnership, on dissolution, treated
asp-rsi) I tv, and part of the assets 269
EFFECTS, (See i; jods. Warrs, MERCHANDISE, Etc.)
FIX. INDEX. 335
[Eeferenoes are to Pages.]
EXECUTOR, (See Title by Will or Testament.)
question of fixtures between executor and heir,
devisees, executor of tenant for life, and re-
mainder man or reversioner 11 13
succeeds to decedent's liability on subscription for
stock 267, 268
EXECUTION,
interest of an owner in common subject to 86
and so of a partner's in the common property 41
money subject to levy under execution 275, 276
EQUITY,
enforces equitable assignments 127
upholds gifts between husband and wife 129
furnishes remedy for infringement of trade-marks.. 103, 104
remedy in, for infringement of copyright 91
restrains violation of author's right in lectures 96
remedy in, for infringement of patents 81
decrees payment of subscription for stock, for the
bonefltof creditors 262
aids stockholder in securing his rights „ 257-261
rules in, governing the transfer of stock 265, 266
affords rehef to mortgagor... 299, 300
foreclosure of equity of redemption in 301, 302
remedy of landlord in, for arrear of rent 319
restrains unauthorized publication of letters 92
enforces specific performance of contract 206
EXPECTANCY, (See Personal Property.)
personal property in, now recognized 81
EXCLUSIVE,
exclusive right of property defined 1
EVICTION, (See Bent.)
when a defense to an action for rent 820-322
FEUDAL, (See Estate, Real, and Personal.)
distinction between feudal, and allodial, tenure .... 28, 29
FIXTURES,
defined 9
336 INDEX. GIF-
[Ileferences are to Pages.]
FlXTXmES— Continued.
ambulatory; sometimes real and sometimes personal,
property — 9
conditions that may determine which . ft
rules for guidance in determining 10, 11
annexation to the soil, actual, or constructiv^e . 10, 11
character of, affected by the parties interested 12
time of removal — 33, 13
as subjects of chattel mortgages . 295, 396
FORECLOSURE, (See Mortgages.)
of the equity of redemption 359, 360
FORFEITURE,
definition, and examples of 105, 106
law of in England, and in the United States 106
when title passes by 107
forfeiture for crime limited in the United States 106
of -stock for non-payment of subscription 359, 360
forfeiture odious in law 107
FRAUD,
vitiates title to trade-mark. 100
affects the validity of patents 79
its effect upon wiUs 138, 139
vitiates contracts of sale 173, 179
impeachment of judgments for 278, 279
FRUITS OF THE EARTH, (See Accession.)
title to, by accession 65, 66
FURNITURE, (See Chuech Fdknituee.)
G.
GIFTS INTER VIVOS,
definition, and subjects of _ 135, 136
delivery essential 126, 137
may be constructive or symbolical, or to a third
person 126
debt due from donee to donor suject of a gift to the
former 126
donor may make himself trustee of the gift 126
gift of a chose in action by assignment. 127
GOO. INDEX. 337
CReferences are to Pages.]
GIFTS INTER YTV08— Continued.
stolen goods not the subject of a gift as against the
owner 127
gifts prejudicial to the rights of creditors invalid... 127
gifts on condition, with reservation, or in trust 128
gifts between parent and child 128
a gift ordinarily not presumed 129
gifts between husband and wife _ 129
when upheld in equity _ 129
gifts, when revocable, and when irrevocable 129
GIFTS CAUSA MORTIS,
defined 130
law of , derived from the civil law 130
occupy middle ground between gifts inter mvos, and
legacies^ 130, 131
essentials to gifts causa mortis 131, 132
donee derives title directly from donor 133
delivery essential 132
distinction between delivery to agent of donor, and
a trustee of the donee 132, 133
revocation of ; not revoked by donor's subsequent
wiU 133,134
GOODS, LOST OR ABANDONED,
the finder acquires title by occupancy 58
owner's title and rights not lost until he abandons
the intention of reclaiming his goods 69
the finder, if he knows the owner, and conceals the
finding, may be held guilty of larceny _ 69
acquisition of title by finding Umited to goods on the
earth's surface ; not applicable to treasure-trove. 60
stolen corporeal property recoverable by the owner,
evenfroni a bona fide purchaser 60
a different rule applies to money, bank notes, and
current negotiable securities - 60, 61
duties of the finder, compensation, etc 61
title not acquired by tortious conversion - 69, 70
GOODS, WARES, MERCHANDISE, EFFECTS, AND
CREDITS,
meaning, and use, of the terms 29,30
22
338 INDEX. nrs.
[References are to Pages.]
GRANT,
' of burial lot in a churchyard, or public cemetery,
generally an easement 1 23
H.
HElR-LOOM.
character, and law of , defined 18
examples of , 19
do not pas3 by devise or bequest separate from the
freehold; the reason 19
HONEY-BEES,
property.'in and rules governing 64
HUSBAND AND WIFE, (See Marriage.)
wife's chattels transferred to husband by marriage_ 121
law in regard to gifts between 129
HYPOTHECATION, (See Bottomry, and Respondentia,
Bonds.)
master, or owner, may hypothecate ship, or cargo. 804, 305
by master, does not transfer property of the ship 306
I.
INDORSEMENT,
title by, and sale of negotiable instruments 208, 209
INFANT,
testamentary capacity of 137
competency to contract 144
INJUNCTION,
unauthorized publication of letters restrained by 92
violation of proprietary right in lectures restrained
by 96
infringement of trade-marks restrained by 96
husband sometimes restrained from recovering
property of wife in an action at law 124
INSOLVENCY,
meaning of the terms insolvency, and bankruptcy... 117
distinction between bankrupt, ajid insolvent, laws .. 117, 118
general purposes, and effect, of insolvent laws 118, 119
United States bankrupt, and insolvent, laws 119, 120
JOI. INDEX. 339
[References are to Pages.]
mSOhYENCY— Continued.
limitations of the power of the States to make 130
when statutes of the United States and of the States
conflict, the latter are suspended, but not abro-
gated by an act of Congress 121
the classes of persons embraced by insolvent laws 119
INSURANCE,
defined, and terms employed 330, 321
nature, and form, of the contract 221-224
the several classes of policies defined 224-226
consummation of the contract 226-338
what constitutes delivery 228
subject-matter of the contract 238, 239
insurable interest.- 229-231
warranties, and representations; two classes of each,
afflrmative and promissory 231-333
special provisions of the contract 234r-337
limitation of time for commencing an action on the
policy - 235, 336
provision for arbitration, to what extent binding ... 236, 337
mutual insurance 287-239
INTENTION,
of parties a factor in determining the character of a
thing as a fixture, or otherwise 11
as affecting question of a transfer of title 16S
INTEREST (See Joint Owners),
interest policy of Insurance 224, 325
INTESTACY,
definition, history, and incidents of 1 13-1 1 7
where title to intestate's property rests intermediate
his death, and the appointment of an adminis-
trator.*. ,... 112-117
J.
JOINT OWNERS,
joint-ownership defined, and the unities constituting
it explained. ...... 82
rules appertaining to the relation 82-34
340 INDEX. LAS.
[References are to Pages.]
JOINT OMVNEBS—Contiuued.
each entitled to an equal share of the rents, income
and profits, during his life 34
possession of one, the possession of all 34
joint-ownership, how severed 34
partners joint owners of their stock in trade and
effects, but without the right of survivorship 3*
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES,
defined; in what respects like, and in what unlike,
corporations, and partnerships 46, 47
business managed by officers and agents 49^
may take, hold, and alien, property, real, and per-
sonal 49
are regulated by statute 47
JOINT TENANTS, (See Joint Owners.)
each may distrain for the whole rent in arrear . 813
JUDGMENT, (See Debts.)
defined, and classified 110
whether judgments are contracts 110
what, and when, judgments transfer title 110-112
authority of a judgment roU of a court of record 378, 279
impeachable for want of jurisdiction, or fraud 278, 279
distinction between courts of general, and of sp'ecial,
jurisdiction 279
as to impeachment of foreign judgments 280
effect of, && res judicata 282, 290, 291
JURISDICTION, (See Debts— Judgment.)
impeachment of judgments for want of 278-280'
L.
LANDLORD AND TENANT, (See Rent.)
question of fixtures between 12
landlord's remedies for rent in arrear 310-330
LARCENY,
finder of lost goods may become guilty of 59
LAST WILL OR TESTAMENT, (See Title by Will or
Testament).
Lm. INDEX. 341
[Beferenoes are to Pages.]
LECTURES,
product of intellectual labor 94
their creator has a common-law proprietary right in
them 94
the right not lost by oral delivery 95
as to rights of persons admitted to hear public lec-
tures 95
the same rules, substantially, apply to playright 95
statutes in England, and in the United States 96
remedies for violation of the right 96
LEGACIES,
likeness, and unlikeness to gifts causa mortis 130
the several kinds 135
defined, and classified '- 340-342
minor divisions, rules, and incidents 343-246
residuary legacy 243
vested, and contingent, legacies __ 244
absolute, and conditional, legacies 245
lapsed legacies 245, 246
abatement of.. - 247
ademption of 347,248
payment, and satisfaction, of 249-251
LETTERS BETWEEN CORRESPONDENTS,
products of intellectual labor, and subjects of prop-
erty - - 93
respective rights of the writer, and receiver 92
unauthorized publication of, restrained by a court of
equity - 93
every letter, in contemplation of law, has literary
merit, in which a property right exists 93
the receiver has a corporeal property in the material
on which the letter is written, and the right to
its possession 94
LIEN, (See f al^s.)
vendor's lien on sale of goods 189
corporation's for debt of share-holder 266
stock in hands of vendee may be subject to a corpo-
rate lien for debt of vendor to the company SCO
LIMITATIONS,
of absolute ownerwhlp - 8-5
342
mDEZ. MAB.
[References are to Pages.]
LIMITATIONS— ConWnMed.
common law, and statutory , limitations 81 3-314
when the period of limitation begins to run 119, 1 20
debt barred by statute revived by new promise 215-320
no new consideration requisite 319
revival of barred debt by acknowledgment 216-219
eflfect of part payment 218
limitation affects the remedy, only 218
limitation of action on policy of insurance 235, 236
on deposit notes in mutual insurance company 239
M.
MANURE^
when real, and when personal, property ..1. 20, 21
MAIL,
payment by 197
offar by 145
MARITIME,
right of seizure of enemies' goods in war 66-58
MARITIME INTEREST,
extra interest for loan of money on bottomry, or
respondentia, bonds 803
MASTER OF SHIPS, (See Bottomet and Respondentia,
Bonds.) •
personally bound on bottomry bond executed by him. 306
MAERIAGE,
transfers wife's chattels to husband 121
husband's right to wife's ehoses in action, and how to
obtain absolute title, and possession 123
they belong to the wife in her own right, when the
husband dies before reducing them to possession. 122
•when husband can gain possession only through
administration of wife's estate 123
no unjust discrimiaation in law against the wife 123, 124
marriage lays burdens upon the husband, from
which the wife is relieved 123,134
marital unit broken into fractions by modern legis-
lation _ 124
marriage, as affecting wills 141
HON. INDEX. 343
[References are to Pages.]
mAteeials.
title by accession on union of materials of different
persons 67-70
MAXIMS,
usquce ad ccelum ; usqucB ad inferos S
Sio utere tuo ut alienum non loedas 3
salus populi supremalex 4
vigilantHms, non dominentibus, leges mbveniunt... ' 103
eessante ratione legis, cessat ipse lex „ 67, 169
qui prior est in tempore, prior est in jure 75
ignorantia Juris neminem excusat _ 169
caveat emptor 173
simplex commendatio non dbligat 173
MERCHANTABILITY, (See Sales.)
{Warranty of in sales : 184
MERCHANDISE, (See Goods, Wakes; Meeohandise, Etc.)
MISTAKE, (See Sales.)
mistake of fact negatives assent... 146
its effect in avoiding contracts 169, 170
MOBILITY, (See Real, AND Personal Property.)
the principal characteristic of personal property.... 2, 6
MODE.
modes of acquiring title classified and analyzed 60, 51
MONEY,
a price in, paid or promised, essential to a sale 148, 149
what constitutes a good tender 199
"money" defined 273
constitutional money 273-376
the "Legal Tender Acts" 273-375
the States may prescribe the currency in which
debts due them for taxes may be paid 275
creditors may stipulate in contracts In which debts
due them thereunder shall be paid 275
subject to levy under execution 275, 376
stolen', not recoverable by owner from a bona fide
purchaser 60, 61
MONUMENTS, (See Mortuary Property.)
personal property of holder of the burial lot 23
344: INDEX. OCO.
[References are to Pages.]
MORTGAGES,
definition . and essential elements of 291,393
formal requisites of 292-394
parol chattel mortgages valid at common law 393, 393
writing generally required by statute 293
separate, and parol, defeasance - 293, 294
subjects of a chattle mortgage 294-296
fixtures may be 295, 296
possession of the mortgaged property 296-398
distinguished from a pledge 398, 399
from a conditional sale with the right to re-purchase 300, 301
relief in equity for the mortgagor 299, 300
foreclosure of the equity of redemption 301, 303
MORTUARY PROPERTY,
kinds, legal rules, and burial rights 22-34
grant of a burial lot generally an easement only 23, 33
vaults, monuments, and decorations of the grave,
personal property of the holder of the lot 23
a quasi property in a corpse, giving relatives the
right of custody and control _ 23
to whom the right, and place of, burial belongs 33, 24
N.
NEGOTIABLE SECURITIES, (See Indorsement),
title of a bona fide purchaser protected 60, 61
sale of , and indorsement 208, 209
NEW PROMISE, (See Limitations.)
refvi ves debt barred by the statute 215-220
NOTE, ETC., (See Sales.)
requisites under Statute of Frauds 160
NOVATION, (See Debts.)
defined, and discharge of debt by 389, 390
o.
OCCUPANCY,
the first known method of acquiring title 53-55 •
foundation of the right of private property 53-55
property acquired by appropriation 54
own.
INDEX.
345
[References are to Pages.]
OCCUPANCY— Conimwed.
right of possession originally limited to act of posses-
sion - fS4
title by capture in war _ 55-58
maritime right of seizure 56-58
of goods lost or abandoned 58-61
title by finding not extended to treasure-trove 60
finder's duty to take proper care of the goods 61
waifs, what they are, and the law of. 61, 62
reclamation of animals ferce natures 62-65
dividing line between wild, and tame ..- 63, 64
honey-bees, property in, and law governing 64
title by accession, and confusion of goods' . _. 65
title to fruits of the earth 65, 66
title to increase of animals 66, 67
materials of diflEerent persons united 67-70
respecting materials wrongfully converted 69,70
title to products of intellectual labor 70, 71
patents for inventions and designs 71-83
copyright, the law of 82-92
letters between correspondents 92-94
lectures, property and rights of authors in 94-96
trade-marks, the law of. 96-114
OFFER, (See Sales.)
different modes of, and acceptance . - 145-147
under the Statute of Frauds 155-153
OFFICERS,
of corporations, authority and power of 43
of joint-stock companies 47
ORGANIZATION,
liability of stockholders in ease of defect In 263, 364
OWNER,
of stolen corporeal property may recover it, even
from a bonaflde purchaser 60
not so in respect to money, bank notes, and com-
mercial paper indorsed' in blank, or payable or
indorsed to bearer 60, 61
OWNERSHIP IN COMMON, (See Tenants in Common.)
defined, and how diflfering from joint-tenancy 35
incidents and rules of - 85, 36
34:6 INDEX. PAB.
[References are to Pages.]
P.
PARENT AND CHILD,
gifts between 128
PARTIES,
how question of flytures affected by 11,12
competency to contract 144
testamentary capacity 136-139
PARTNERS,
definition, and leading characteristics, of 38
joint owners of ^their stock in trade and effects, but
without survivorship 39
on dissolution of partnership they become tenants in
common of the partnership property 39
death of one works a dissolution of the partnership. 39
his interest passes to his personal representatives,
■who become tenants in common with the sur-
vivors : 89
the survivors have the exclusive right to the posses-
sion of the partnership property, for the purpose
of closing up the affairs of the concern, and
adjusting the equities ; but they hold the prop-
erty as trustees 39, 40
real estate of the partnership treated in equity as
personal property 40
each partner is the agent of all 40, 41
as to his authority to assign partnership property,
without consent of his co-partners 40, 41
interest of each partner in the tangible property
liable to sale on execution for payment of his
debts -- 41
the purchaser becomes a tenant in common with the
other partners . 41
PAROL,
chattel mortgages when valid 292, 293
as to parol defeasance of mortgages 298, 294
PART-OWNERS OF SHIPS,
their relation defined, and distinguished from joint
owners ;i generally tenants in common of the
ship, and may be partners 87,38
PEE. INDEX. 347
[References are to Pages.]
PATENTS,
title to by original acquisition 70,71
defined, and policy of the law of 73
contract between the inventor and the State 72
subject, of regulated by statute.. 73
essentials in a patentable invention 73-77
mode of obtaining, and conditions of, a valid patent- 77-80
other points in the law of patents 80-83
PAYMENT,
by note or bill 193-195
by check or draft 195,196
in counterfeit or worthless biUs 196
in specific articles 197
in "Legal Tender " notes 273-375
payment by mail 197
on Sunday, effect of 198
part payment under Statute of Frauds 159, 160
payment by vendee on sale and purchase 198
debt barred by statute of limitations, revived by part
payment 315-320
payment of legacies 349-351
appropriation of payments 197,198
PEEFOEMANCE,
specific performance of contracts of sale 306
delivery, in performance of the contract 185-189
PERSONAL PROPERTY,
its characteristics ; mobility the leading one 2-6
change from personal to real; and vice versa 6
duration of enjoyment an element in 7, 8
real estate of a partnership treated as personal prop-
erty in equity 40
brain products, personal property. c 70, 71
patents for inventions and designs 72
letters between correspondents 92, 93
personal property in expectancy 81
statutes against perpetuities apply to 81
wife's personal property transferred to her husband
by marriage, at common law „ 133
devolution of, on dealth of the owner 824, 335
348 INDEX. PEO.
[Keferenoes are to Pages.]
PEW, (See Chtjech Furniture.)
rights of pew-holder 21,29
PHONOGRAPH,
communications by _-- - 146
PLEDGE, (See Mortgage.)
as distinguished from a mortgage - - 298, 299
liability of pledgee of stock 367
POSSESSION,
one of the unities constituting joint-ownership 32
possession of one the possession of all 34
the only unity in a tenancy in common 35
right of possession originally limited to act of posses-
sion 64
transfer of title and possession an advance step in
the history and rights of property 55
of mortgaged property 296-298
PRESUMPTION,
a gift not ordinarily presumed 129
PRODUCTS,
of the brain, title to by accession 70, 71
of the fruits of the earth, title to -.. 65, 66
what products a tenant may remove 14
PROMISE, (See Limitations.)
new, to revive debt barred by the statute 215-220
PROPERTY,
the term defined, audits uses 1, 2
distinction between real, and personal 2, 6
absolute, and qualified, defined 3
limitations of absolute ownership 3,4
property in brain products _ 70, 71
in patents for inventions and designs 73
in letters between correspondents 93,93
in lectures __ 94, 95
in trade-marks _ 96, 99
gttasi property in a corpse 23
qualified, in captured wild animals 62, 65
.absolute property in a thing essential to a sale 147
general property in bailor, special, in bailee 210, 211
EEN. INDEX. 34&
[References are to Pages.]
R.
REAL PROPERTY, (See Real, and Personal, Peopeett.')
defined, and what it includes S
RECEIVER,
in bankruptcy of a stockholder, power and duty of.. 263
RECLAMATION, (See Animals.)
a remedy of vendor on sale of goods 203, 203
RE-INSUEANCE, (See Instjeance.)
RELEASE, (See Debts.)
discharge of debts by 286-288
REMEDIES,
for infringement of copyright 91
for infringement of a patent 81
for violation of author's right in his lectures 96
for infringement of a trade-mark 103, 104
restraining the unauthorized publication of letters.. 92, 93
of vendee on purchase of goods 204-307
of vendor on sale of goods 200-204
of a corporation against a stockholder 359-262
of mortgagor in equity 299, 800
of holder of bottomry bond in a court of Admiralty. 307
landlord's remedies for rent in arrear 310
RENT, (See Landlord and Tenant.)
definition, and properties of 308
the kinds of rent 309, 310
landlord's remedy for rent in arrear by distress 310-316
essentials to the right of distress, and incidental
rules 311-316
the right canceled by a legal tender 312, 313
not extinguished by an unsatisfied judgment 313
any one of several joint tenants may distrain 813
goods and chattels distrained must be safely kept... 315, 316
landlord may have an action of debt for rent due
andinarrear 816,317
an action of covenant 317, 318
an action of assumpsit 818, 319
or a suit in equity in some cases 319
350 INDEX. SAL.
[References are to Pages.]
U'ENT— Continued.
tenant's obligation to pay rent _ 330-3S2
apportionment of rent 323, 323
REPRESENTATIONS, (See Sale— IifsUBANCE.)
on sale of goods 173-174
in contracts of insurance 283, 333
two classes, affirmative and promissory 333
RE-SALE, (See Sales.)
when vendor may re-sell 301, 203
REVOCATION,
wills, how revoked 140, 141
of gifts inter vivos, and causa mortis 129, 133
s.
SALES,
defined; elements of a valid sale. — 143-144
parties competent to contract 144
mutual assent -.. 144r-147
offer and acceptance 145, 146
withdrawal of offer before acceptance. 146
mistake of fact negatives mutual assent 146
subject of the sale 147, 148
vendor must have an absolute property in 147
must have an actual, or potential, existence. 147, 148
a price in money, paid or promised 148, 149
the contract as affected by the Statute of Frauds 149-160
it embraces both executory, and executed, contracts 150
contracts not embraced in it 150-152
what embraced in "goods, wares, and merchandise," 152-154
statutory Umit of " £10 and upwards " 154,155
acceptance and receipt 155-158
"earnest, or part payment" 159, 160
" note or memorandum in writing" 160
contracts in respect to passing title 164-169
intention of the parties 165
delivery as related to transfer of title 165, 166
sale of specific goods unconditionally 166, 167
of specific chattels conditionally 167
esA. INDEX. 851
[Beferenoes are to Pages.]
SAliEa—Continued.
I of goods not specific , 167,168
appropriation on sale of goods not specific 168
failure of consideration 1 170, 171
illegality of consideration. 171, 173
fraudulent sales, voidable 172
misrepresentation, or concealment 1-73-174
intent to deceive an essential element 174
reliance upon representations, and damage 175
fraud on vendor 176-178
on creditors 178, 179
illegal contracts of sale 179, 180
conditions, and conditional sales 180, 181
warranties on sales 183-185
in sales by sample 183
in sales by description 184
as to merchantability _ 184
fitness for a particular use . 184
in sale of provisions 184
of commercial paper 185
delivery in performance of the contract 185
how, and where, delivery to be made 186-189
delivery to a common carrier 187
kinds of delivery, quantity, and time of 187, 188
acceptance, the complement of delivery 189
the vendor's lien. 189
stoppagem transitu 1 190-193
tender by the vendee 193, 199, 200
remedies of the vendor 200-304
reclamation of the goods 203
actions by the vendor 203, 304
remedies of the vendee 204-208
specific performance of the contract 306
SAMPLE, (See Sales.)
warranty on sales by . 183
SATISFACTION,
of legacies— .,. — , 349-251
of debts 385, 386
SEAMEN,
wages of, preferred claims 306
362 INDEX. SXJE.
[References are lo Pages.]
SHARES, (See Stock and Stockholders— Distributive Shakes.)
SHIP, (See Bottomry and Respondentia, Bonds.)
relation of part-owners to each other, and to third
persons - 37, 38
property in, not transferred by hypothecation 306
STATUTE OP FRAUDS, (See Sales.)
effect of, in contracts of sale 149
STOCK,
what it embraces in corporations 45, 254
stock, and shares of stock, defined J 253-255
rights of a shareholder summarized 254, 255
acquisition of title by subscription 256, 257
by a transfer 257
liability of stockholder to the company, and its
creditors 257-262
subscription, a contract to pay on " calls ". 258, 259
remedies of company for unpaid subscriptions 259-262
statutory liability of a stockholder 262, 263
stock notes in mutual insurance companies 238, 239
STOLEN PROPERTY,
stolen corporeal property recoverable by the owner,
even from a &ono^de purchaser 60
■• a different rule obtains in respect to money, and
negotiable commercial paper 60,61
not the subject of a gift as against the true owner. .. 127
stolen goods of a foreign merchant not deemed waifs 62
STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU, (See Sales.)
a remedy of vendor 190, 193
SUBSCRIPTION,
for stock, rights and liabilities of subscriber 256-267
SUCCESSION, (See Corporations.)
definition, and kinds 107, 108
common law succession 108-110
incorporations aggregate 109
when it exists, and when not, in sole corporations .. 109
SUNDAY,
effect of payment on - 198'
SURVIVORSHIP, (See Joint Owners.)
a characteristic of joint-ownership 1 33
does not belong to ownership in common 35
TIT. INDEX. 363
[References are to Pages.]
T.
TENANT, (See Emblements— Landlord and Tenant —
Rent.)
question of fixtures between landloi'd and tenant 11, 13
removal of fixtures by tenant 18, 13
what products tenant may remove 14
who, and when, entitled to remove products 14-17
relation and rights of tenant in common 35-37
obligation of tenant to pay rent -. 320-322
when eviction a defense to an action for rent 320-323
TENANTS IN COMMON, (See Ownersaip in Common.)
partners are, of the partnership property, on a disso-
lution of the partnership 89
purchaser of a partner's interest becomes a tenant in
common with the other partners 41
TENDER, (See Sales — Money.)
by vendee on purchase of goods 198
the requisites of a good tender 199-200
as to the effect of the ' ' Legal Tender "Acts 272-275
right of distress canceled by a legal tender 312, 313
TESTAMENT, (See Last Will or Testament.)
TIME,
one of the unities in joint ownership 32
for the removal of fixtures 13, 13
of noting contract under Statute of Frauds 161, 163
of delivery on sale of goods 187
time-policy of insurance 336
limitation of time for commencing actions 313-314
TITLE,
modes of acquiring title to personal property classi-
fied andanalyzed 50, 51
one of the unities in joint-ownerghip 33
cannot be acquired by a willful tort ..- 70
when title passes in case of forfeiture 107
when a judgment transfers title 110-113
legal title of intestate's property in the adminis-
trator 116
354 INDEX. TEU.
[References are to Pages.]
TITLE— Continiied.
wife's title to her chattels transferred to her hus-
band by" marriage - 121
title by will or testament 134^143
methods of acquiring title to stock 257, 258
title by assignment 210
by indorsement 208, 209
by bailment *... 210,211
by finding .. .... 58-61
where title to intestate's goods rests intermediate his
death, and the appointment of an adminis-
trator 112, 117
TORTS,
damages for injuries resulting from 112
wrong doer not allowed to profit by his tort Ill
TRADE-MARKS,
defined 96, 97
in what sense property 97
how differing from copyright 97
a common law right 97
what may, and what may not, be adopted and used
as a trade-mark 98
by whom, and how, acquired-. 99-103
freedom from fraud 100
title to, will pass by operation of law 103
what constitutes an infringement 103,103
remedies for infringement 103,104
TRUST,
survivors of a deceased partner, trustees of the part-
nership property 39, 40
executors and administrator's hold decedent's prop-
erty in trust 116
assets of a corporation, on dissolution, a trust fund
for the benefit of creditors 268, 369
WA£. INDEX. 355
[References are to Pages.]
V.
VAULTS, (See Mortuary Property.)
when, personal property.- 23
VENDOR AND VENDEE, (See Sales.)
question of fixtures between 11, 13
fraud on vendor in sales 176-178
when, and when not, an implied warranty in a sale
of personal property 183-185
duty of vendor to deliver when the sale is complete. 185
his lien on a sale of goods 189, 200, 201
right of stoppage in transitu 190
tender by vendee on purchase of goods 193
special damages for breach of contract 205
VOLUNTARY,
meaning, as generally used in the law 125
VOYAGE, (See Insurance, Bottomry, and Respondentia,
Bonds).
W.
WAIFS,
stolen goods, waived or thrown away by a thief in
his flight 61
if seized before the owner reclaims them he loses his
title - 61, ea
to whom the title passes, and how tHe owner may
regain his goods 62
stolen goods of a foreign merchant, not deemed
waifs -,- 6a
"WAGER-POLICY, (See Insurance.)
a wager-policy invalid.. 22£
"WARES, (See Goods, Wares, and Merchandise, Etc.)
WARRANTY, (See Salss ■ - Insurance. )
several kinds in sales 182-185
on sales by sample • 18S
by description 184
of merchantability 184
366 INDEX. WIL.
[References are to Pages. )
WARRANTY— Conimued.
of fitness for a particular use 184
in sale of pi-ovisions - 10^
of commercial paper 185
when there is, and when not, an implied warranty
of title in a sale IBS
reipedies of vendee for a breach of 206, 207
warranties in contracts of insurance 231,132
WAR, (See Capture.)
seizure and confiscation of enemies' goods in time of
war 55§58
WIFE, (See Maeriage, Husband and Wife.)
WILL, (See Title by Will or Testament.)
of donor does not revoke a gift causa mortis 134
title by, derived immedtately from testator 134, 135
will or testament defliied 136
testamentary capacity 136-139
written, and unwritten, wills 139
revocation of wills... .■ 140, 141
when the will takes effect 141, 143
Date Due
OCT "2'*< ^
■
- - - -
KF 705 S6l^
Author
Smith, Horace Edwin
Vol.
Title
A Treatise on the law of
Copy