the purchaser having acted in good faith, and without any notice of defect
in the husband's title, A. was estopped from denying that the deed to the
husband was made in good faith, or that the grantee was properly named
therein. 2. That the daughter, being a voluntary grantee, had no claim,
either under the original deed or under the one executed pending suit.
3. That the deed to the husband was not void for uncertainty in the
description of the premises conveyed, and that the plaintiffs were entitled
to have their deed reformed. The German Mutual Insurance Co. v.
Grim, 341.
2 Where a person conveyed land by a deed, which was not recorded, and his
heir, after his death, conveyed the same land, by a deed which was duly
recorded, to an innocent purchaser, for value, held, that the recorded deed
from the heir operated to divest the title of the grantee in the unrecorded
deed from the ancestor. Youngblood v. Vastine, 509.
3. An alteration in a deed of conveyance by a grantee after delivery does not
affect the legal title or re-invest the same in the grantor, although a fraud
ulent and material change may disable the holder from bringing an action
upon its covenants. Woods v Hilderbrand, 513.
4. A deed filed for record in a recorder's office, and recorded, is notice to subse-
quent purchasers, notwithstanding the failure of the officer to index it.
Bishop v. Schneider, 533.
5. When it is provided by statute that, in order to the registration or recording
of a conveyance, the deed shall be acknowledged before some officer, and
a certificate thereof entered upon the deed, if the deed is entered without
the prescribed acknowledgment the recording or registration will not be
constructive notice to any one. Id.
CONVICTION.
See CRIMINAL LAW.
1. A corporation is liable to exemplary or punitive damages for such acts,
done by its agents or servants, acting within the scope of their employ-
ment, as would, if done by an individual acting for himself, render him
liable for such damages. The Atlantic & Great Western Railway Company
v. Dunn, 382.
2. A corporation cannot, by resolution or by-laws, impose personal and indi-
vidual liability upon its members, unless the power is specifically granted
in the charter or by general statute. The capital stock is the fund out of
which the debts of a corporation must be paid, and dividends of profit already
paid to the stockholders cannot be reached by creditors of the corporation
Funds due to a corporation (as for rent) may be reached by proper process.
Reid v. The Eatonton Manufacturing Company, 563.
CO-SERVANTS.
See MASTER AND SERVANT. 8.
1. In a contract for the sale of land the vendee agreed to pay the purchase-money
in installments, and the vendor executed a bond conditioned to deliver the
deed upon the payment of the last installment; held, that the covenants were
independent and that the vendor might enforce payment of all the install-
ments without first tendering a deed. Bowen v. Bailey, 601.
2. H. sold to R. lands at an agreed price, part of which was paid in cash and R.'s
note given for the balance. H., at the same time, executed and delivered his
bond conditioned to make title to R. when said note was paid. H. afterward
assigned the note before its maturity to M., who brought action thereon after
maturity. R. demurred on the ground that no deed of the land had been
tendered. Held, that the covenant in the note and that in the bond were
dependent, and that the demurrer was well taken. Robinson v. Harbour, 671.
1. The owner of a parcel of land through which a railroad ran conveyed the
land by a deed purporting to convey the entire parcel without reservations
as to the right of way of the railroad. In an action of covenant, held, that
this right of way was such an incumbrance as would constitute a breach of
a covenant against incumbrance contained in the deed. Beach v. Miller, 290.
2. It is not necessary that there should be an actual eviction by process of law
to constitute a breach of covenant of title and quiet enjoyment. Such
covenant is broken whenever there has been an involuntary loss of posses-
sion by reason of the hostile assertion of an irresistible paramount title,
whether that title be established by judgment or not. McGary v Hast-
ings, 456.
8. The measure of damage in an action on a covenant of title, after eviction, is
the purchase-money and interest; but where the covenantee has purchased
the paramount title, it is the sum actually and in good faith paid therefor
and the amount expended in defending his possession, provided such dam-
ages shall not exceed the purchase-money and interest. Ib.
Where a prisoner has been convicted and sentenced, and duly committed in
pursuance of the sentence, the power of the court to revise or change the
sentence is at an end. Brown v. Rice, 11.
CREDITORS, SALE TO DELAY.
See CONTRACT, 5.
Bee BANK, 2; CARRIER OF PASSENGERS; CORPORATION, 1; COVENANT OF
TITLE, 3; EJECTMENT, 2; MASTER and Servant.
DE FACTO GOVERNMENT.
See CONFEDERACY, 2, 3.
DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY.
See BANKRUPTCY, 1, 2.
A husband deserted his wife in Ohio, where both parties, up to the time of
the desertion, were domiciled, and where she remained. To a petition by
the wife for divorce and alimony, the husband set up a decree of divorce
obtained by him in Indiana, under proceedings in compliance with the stat-
utes of that state, but in which there was no jurisdiction of the person of
the wife except by constructive service, and of which she had no actual
notice. Held, that her domicil remained unaffected by the desertion of the
husband, and that the decree was no defense to her petition for alimony.
Cox v. Cox, 415.
Where a husband purchased lands, giving his notes as security for the pur-
chase price, and afterward, by his sole deed, reconveyed the lands to the
vendor as a satisfaction of the notes, held, that the wife's right of dower
did not attach. Hugunin v. Cochrane, 303.
DROVER'S PASS.
See CARRIER, 8.
The owner of two adjacent lots, having dwelling-houses thereon, conveyed
one to the plaintiff and the other to the defendant, by deeds containing cove-
nants of warranty and against incumbrance. The house purchased by
plaintiff received light and air through windows opening upon an area on
the lot purchased by defendant. The defendant being about to obstruct these
windows by building upon and filling up the area, the plaintiff brought suit
for an injunction. Held, that there was no grant of an easement for light
and air implied from the fact that the windows were in use at the time of
the conveyance, and were necessary to the convenient enjoyment of the
property, and that an injunction could not be granted. Mullen v. Stricker
379.
1. The owner of lands, who has recovered a judgment of ejectment against
persons occupying under a claim of title, is not entitled to the crops grown
and harvested by such persons before the judgment. Page v. Fowler, 462.
8. When, in such case, the owner obtained possession of the crops by replevin
held, in an action to recover their value, that the measure of damages was
the highest market value within a reasonable time after the property was
taken, with interest computed from the time such value was estimated Ib.
See MORTGAGE.
1. The relator received from the proper officer a certificate of his election to
the office of district clerk of M. county; he subsequently took the oath,
gave and filed the bond required by law, and then demanded of the respond.
the former clerk, whose term of office had expired, and who was in
possession - the seal, records, books, papers, etc., belonging to said office.
The respondent answered that the relator, being a non-resident of the state,
was ineligible to the office, and therefore not legally elected. Held, that
the relator was entitled to a mandamus. State v. Sherwood, 116.
2. A certificate of election is prima facie evidence of title, and the court will
not go behind it in proceedings for a mandamus. Ib.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5.
See ADMINISTRATOR, 1; CONVEYANCE, 1.
1. In an action for goods sold and delivered, the plaintiff gave in evidence a
written order for the goods, signed by the defendant, and proved that they
were delivered according to the terms of such order. The defendant there
upon offered to prove that at the time said order was made, as an induce
ment thereto, plaintiff verbally agreed with defendant that the latter might
revoke the order during the summer and not take the goods, and that dur-
ing the summer and before the delivery of the goods he did revoke said
order. Held, that such offer was properly rejected. Wemple v. Knopf, 147.
2. In proof of the laws of a foreign country, the testimony of any person,
whether a professed lawyer or not, who appears to the court to be well
informed on this point, is competent. Hall v. Costello, 207.
& On the trial of an action for goods sold and delivered, the defendant offered
in evidence an execution and return of the sheriff, and a schedule of prop-
erty attached thereto, verified by the plaintiff, in the case of a third person
against the plaintiff, of a date subsequent to said alleged sale to the defend.
ant, this claim not being included in the list. Held, that, as an admission
of the plaintiff, this was proper evidence. Springer v. Drosch, 356.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3; ELECTION, 2; HUSBAND AND WIFE, 1, 2;
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT; RAILROAD COMPANY, 1; SLANDER, 1, 2;
STAMPS, 2; FOREIGN LAW.
EXECUTIVE POWER.
See JUDICIAL POWER.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.
See CARRIER OF PASSENGERS, 2; CORPORATION.
EXPRESS COMPANIES.
See CARRIER, 2, 3.
FIRE DEPARTMENT.
See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 4.
As between the vendor and vendee of lands used in growing cotton, a cotton
gin-stand, put up after the usual manner for use on the place, is a fixture,
and passes with the land. Richardson v. Borden, 595.
FOREIGN JUDGMENT.
See ACTION; INJUNCTION.
1. In the absence of evidence the presumption is that the laws of another
state conform in substance to the general principles of the common law.
Ellis v. Mason, 81.
2. Plaintiff and defendant, in pursuance of an agreement to that effect, went to
Canada in 1864 for the purpose of procuring men to be enlisted in the United
States army, and before going, and also while there, plaintiff loaned to
defendant money to pay his expenses. In an action to recover such money
held, that the contract, having for its object the violation of a law of Canada
was void, and that the plaintiff could not recover. Hall v. Costello, 207.
FORWARDER.
See CARRIER, 3.
|