Where the president and secretary of a corporation executed an assignment of its property, and attached the seal of the company thereto, without any specific authority from the company to do so: Held, that it was not a proper execution of the instrument; and that the want of authority on the part of the officers could not be cured by any proof of execution, made before the commissioner: Id. An agreement was made between the Pacific Mail Steamship Company and the Accessory Transit Company, by which the former company was to pay to the latter a certain sum per trip, or per month, so long as the boats of the Pacific Company should run without opposition: Held, that in an action brought by the Transit Company against the Pacific Company, although the contract was immoral and in restraint of trade and commerce, and the Court would not enforce it against the delinquent party, or, if the money had been paid, enable the party paying to recover it back, but would leave the parties as the law found them, both being in pari delicto, yet that the rule did not apply to an action by one of the principals in such a contract, against the agent who had received money thereon: Id. Money having been paid voluntarily, to an agent, for his principal, by a party who could not have been compelled to make such payment, it becomes thé property of the principal, in the agent's hands, for which he should account. He has no right to refuse payment to his principal because the latter had not a legal claim to the money paid: Id. An agent has no right to dispute the title of his principal to moneys received by him for the use of the principal. Nor can he resist an action for the amount so received, on the ground that the money was paid on an illegal contract between the original parties: Id. After a corporation has virtually ceased to exist, and for all purposes of business, and for promoting the objects of the charter, all its powers have been taken away, its property all expended, and the company is insolvent, it is not improper for the president of the company to enter into arrangements on his own behalf, for carrying on and continuing for his own benefit the business formerly conducted by the company, under an agreement not imposing any duty or obligation upon the corporation, or involving any use of its property: Id. Where the president of a corporation held a mortgage upon vessels of the corporation, given to secure him for advances, and for bonds of the company held by him, and was authorized by the company to sell the vessels, as its agent, sold the same at private sale, to his son, taking his note for the purchase-money, he still keeping the control and management of the vessels and rendering no account to the purchaser for the use of them: Held, that such a transaction could not be upheld; and the sale was ordered to be set aside, and the agent directed to account to the company for the proceeds of the vessels, when sold by him: Id. SUPREME COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS.1 Savings Bank-Tax on account of Depositors.-The Legislature have power to impose upon savings banks an annual tax on account of their depositors, founded upon the amount of their deposits, to be assessed one half on the average amount of deposits for the six months preceding the first day of May, and the other half on the average amount for the six months preceding the first day of November; and if a statute imposing such taxes is passed in April, a tax may be levied under it founded upon the average amount of deposits for the six months preceding the first day of May of the same year: Com. vs. The People's Savings Bank. Sale of Property-Action for Deceit-Evidence.-In an action of tort for deceit in the sale of property, other representations, made by the defendant at the time of making those set forth in the declaration, and respecting the same subject-matter, are admissible in evidence, for the purpose of enabling the jury to judge more accurately of the meaning of the words relied upon to sustain the action: Pedrick vs. Porter. An action of tort for deceit in the sale of property does not lie for false and fraudulent representations concerning profits that may be made from it in the future: Id. Libel-Justification-Evidence of contents of Document destroyed by Witness.-A letter to a woman, containing libellous matter concerning her suitor, cannot be justified on the ground that the writer was her friend and former pastor, and that the letter was written at the request of her parents, who assented to all its contents: "The Count Joannes" vs. Bennett. One who has voluntarily and deliberately destroyed a written document, cannot be permitted to testify to its contents in a suit brought by himself 1 From Charles Allen, Esq., Reporter; to appear in volume 5 of his Reports. and founded upon it, without first introducing evidence to rebut the suspicion of fraud arising from his act: Id. Criminal Case-Authority of Judge to discharge Jury-Verdict after discharge. The judge before whom a criminal case is tried has discretionary power to discharge the jury from their deliberations on the verdict at such hour as he sees fit. And if he has given orders to the officer to discharge them at a certain hour in the night, if they have not then agreed, and the officer at that hour ascertains that they have not agreed, and accordingly informs them that they are discharged, they have no authority to agree upon a verdict afterwards; and a verdict afterwards. agreed upon will be set aside: Comm'th. vs. Townsend. Agreement Prevention of Performance by one Party.—No action lies on an agreement, promising to pay for tuition for a specified time, if during the whole of that time the promissor was prevented by illness from attending and receiving the tuition: Stewart vs. Loring. Fouling of a Well by escape of Gas-Action by unlicensed Keeper of Livery Stable-Damages. An unlicensed keeper of a livery stable cannot recover damages for an injury to his business caused by the escape of gas through the ground and into the water of a well upon his premises; but may recover for the nuisance to his real estate: Sherman vs. Fall River Iron Works Co. The fact that other causes have contributed to render the water of a well impure and unfit for use is no bar to an action to recover damages for an injury to the water caused by the escape of gas into it; but it may be shown to affect the amount of damages: Id. Smuggling-Action by Customs Officer for Reward for Discovery.— An officer of the customs of the United States, who finds smuggled goods, while assisting the inspectors who have charge of a vessel, in examining the passengers and their luggage, although not in discharge of a specific duty assigned to him, cannot maintain an action to recover a reward offered by the owners of the vessel to any person giving information to their agent or officers of any goods smuggled or concealed, or intended to be smuggled therefrom: Davies vs. Burns and others. INDEX. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. 1. Not valid without performance. Schilling vs. Durst, 2. By one of several wrongdoers, is good as to all. Merchants' Bank vs. Curtis, ACCOUNT. 1. Where the action lies. Appleby vs. Brown, ACTS OF CONGRESS. 1789, Sept. 24, sect. 11-12. See COURTS, 1-5. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5, &c. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 14. 1861, July 13. 1862, Feb. 13, 1862, Feb. 25. PAGE 447 . 315 1862, July 17. 1863, March 3, ch. 73. See DRAFT, 4. ADMINISTRATOR. See EXECUTOR. AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENCE. Lease, reserving pecuniary rent, is within the Pennsylvania statute in regard to. AGENT. Frank vs. Maguire, See BANKS, 1. BILLS AND NOTES, 2, 3. FACTOR, 1. NEGLIGENCE, 8, 10, 16. I. Liability of Agent. 1. Principal may recover in tort, for damages caused by his agent's breach of duty. Ashley vs. Root, . 2. When a person enters into a contract as agent, he warrants his own VOL. XI.-49 (769) AGENT. authority, unless very special circumstances, or an express agreement, relieve him from that responsibility. White vs. Madison, 3. Where one pretending to be an agent has contracted as such without authority, the party contracted with has the right to repudiate the contract and hold the assumed agent immediately responsible for damages, without waiting for the time when an action might be maintained on the contract itself. Id. 4. The damages in such a case are measured not by the contract, but by the injury resulting from the agent's want of power. Id. 5. If special damages should be incurred in consequence of the agent's failure to bind his principal, such as the costs of an unsuccessful action against the principal to enforce the contract, they might be recovered. Id. 6. If the act of the agent be fraudulent, an action for the deceit would lie, but it would be a concurrent remedy with the action on the warranty. Id. 7. Agent has no right to retain money paid him for his principal, although the latter could not have recovered it legally from the payer. Murray vs. Vanderbilt, II. Liability of principal. 8. Where agent has obeyed instructions, he is entitled to reimbursement from principal for all damages he has sustained. Howe vs. Buffalo, &c., Railroad Co., 9. An unauthorized submission to arbitration may be ratified by acts of principal. Lowenstein vs. McIntosh, ALABAMA, THE CASE OF THE, 663 . 765 440 247 689 AMENDMENT. See TORT, 1, 1. Where no mistake was alleged in making a person co-defendant, it was not error in the Court to refuse to allow an amendment by striking off his name. Locke et al. vs. Daugherty et al., 633 1. An award covers everything meant to be submitted to the arbitration, and is the same in this respect as a judgment. Lowenstein vs. McIntosh, 247 2. Informal submission. Munn vs. Reed, ASSAULT AND BATTERY. 254 1. Evidence in mitigation of damages. Bruce vs. Priest, ASSIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS. . 558 See CONFLICT OF LAWS, 2. 1. Where a person having a lease assigns his property for the benefit of his creditors, and the assignment does not disclose, and the assignee is ignorant, that the assignor owns such a lease, the assignee will not become liable for subsequently accruing rent, if he does not enter into the possession of the demised premises, as such assignee, or do any act which can be regarded as an election to accept the term. Lewis vs. Burr, 2. Where the assignment is made on the 28th of January, and the assignee merely enters, to take an inventory of and remove assigned 301 |