74; Wright v. Bishop, 88 Ill. 304; Grosvenor v. Magill, 37 111. 240; Arnold v. U. S. 9 Cranch, 119; Richardson's ease, 2.Story, 571 ;Lapeyre v. U. S. 17 Wall. 198; U. S. v. Norton, 97 U. S.170; BUl'gess v. Salmon; Iil.:S81; Kennelly v. Palmer, 6 Gray, 316; People v. Clark,l Cal. 406; Wrangham v. Hersey, 3\Vils. 274; Combe v. Pitt. 3 Burr. 1423: Harter v. Kernochan, 2 l\Tol'r. Tram'.
Common Carrier-Connecting Lines-Liability. ST. LOUIS'INS. Co. 'V. ST. LOUIS, VANDALIA, T. H. & I. R Co.. Wnsll. Law Rep. 323. In error to the circuit court of the United States. tor' the eastern district of Missouri. The general question presented by this case relates to the liability of the defendant for the value of certain cotton, part of shipments made at St. Louis for Liverpool, and which, having passed over defendant's road, thence over the lines of other railroads, was destroyed by an accidental tire in Jersey City, while in the custody 'Of t.be Erie RaHway Company for delivery ,to an ocean steamer for further transportation., The decision of the supreme court wits; ;rendered at the October term, 1881, Mr. Justice Ha1'lan delivering the opinion of the court affirmiilg the judgment ·ofhe lower court, to the effect: A common carrier of merchandise, in the absence of a special contract, express or implied, for the safe transportation of goods to their destination, is only bound to carry safely to the end.of its line, and there deliver to the next carrier in the route. Where the custom was to make a way-bill over its' own road,' it does not show an undertaking to transport beyond the terminus of its line, and such an untertaking cannot be implied from the fact that· the way-bills on their face indicated that the eotl;Qn was consigned to parties beyond its terminus. No arrangement between a dispatch company, undertaking to forward goods, and sundry railroad companies whose lines terminate at a given point, whereby the latter separately agrees to carryall goods for transportation of which tbe former should contract, at established tariff mt-es furnished by the railroad companies, will raise an implication of an agreement to. carry beyond the terminu8 of their respective routes. Nor would such an arrangement involve joint liability upon the part of the railroad companies, or make tl,lem partners, either inter sese or as to third parties. The cases cited in the opinion were: New Jersey St. Nav. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 383; Railroad Co.v. Manuf'g Co. 16WaU. 328' York Co. v. Central Railroad, 3 WaU1l3; Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 129.
Life Insurance. KNICKERBOCKER LIFE INS. Co. "'. FOLEY, 13 Law Rep. 577. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the district of South tlaro1ina. 'fhis .action was brought to recover the amount of the policies and of premium overpaid, with interest. It was commenced in a state court, and, upon application of the insurance company, was removed to the United States circuit coiIrt. The company admitted the issue of the policies and the payment of the premiums, but set up as a defence that the plaintiff and insured did not make true and correct answers to the questions, whether' the party insured was of temperate habits, and had always been so. 'fhe case was dedded ill the supreme court on March 3, 1882, Mr. Justice Field delivering the
NOTES OF DECISIONS.
opillwn of:the courtatlirming the judgment 'of the lowet,cl!JUrt. ' The tiQnthat all the representationsJin the application for the policy of insurance are warranties: that sJ\ch representations are true,. and that jf .the jUry finds from the evidence that nhe habits of .the insulled'st· the time of, or anw. time to; the application werenQt temperate,:thenthe answers made by him 'to the questions, "Are you a man of temperate habits?" "Have ways I>o?" were untrue, @d the waa. yoid; but jf the jIlry aJ$. in routine of life. were temperate, then such representations were not untrue withjnthe meaning of the policy, although they may find that he had an attack of delirium tremens resulting frOm in drink pri01" to the iSmJ3Pce,Qf the po]'i(:y,-'--correctly presents the:·h\w of ,the case. ' ,A.G. Magrath,for 'Piaintiff ii! error.' , J.B. Kennedy and Mr. contra. : The case cited in the opinidliw8s NewJ61'seYLife Ins. Co. v. Baker, 94 U:S. 610.": i " . .,/1 :
v... lOAm. ·L. Rec. 593. '.fh-ifl was' an appeal from the cirj cuit:cQUlt:of tbe! ttnitMStates: for the southerh district of Mississippi; TlW case was deC(illld in' tlie''Suprem'e comt of the United States at the October term, 1881, Mr. Justice Miller delivering the opinion of the court affirming the decree of the circuit court, to the effect that real estate purchased with partnership funds for partnership purposes, thougl1 the title be taken in.the individual name of one or botll p!U'tners, is ,first subject to the partnership debts, and is then to be distributee} among the copartners according to their respective rights. The possessor of the legal title in such cases holds thA property in trpst :th'e 'purposes of the copartnership; and in caseof the dissolution of thecopartnership by tIle death,of one of its members, the SU!:.; vivor, who is charged with the duty of paying ,the debts, can dispose of this the purchaser can compel the heirs at law of the deceased partner to perfect the by con vllyance of legal title in 3: court of equity. . The cases cited in theopiuion were; Dyer v. Clark, 5 Metc.562; Delmonico v. Delmonico, 2 Sandf. Ch. 366; Andrew's Heirs v. 'Brown, 21 Ala. 437; Du. puy v. Leavenworth, 17 262; Markham v. Merritt, 7 How. (Miss.) 437; Fareday v. Wightwick, 1 R. & Mylne, 45; S. C. 1 Mylne & K. '649, 663; Bropm v.1.3room, 3 Mylne & K. 443; Cookson v. Cookson, 8 Sim, 529; Townsbendv. Devaynes, 11 Sim. 498. notes. ' Bill of Exchange-Pleading. HITCHCOCK 'V. BUCHANAN, 25 Alb. L. J. 410. This was an action of assumpsit brought by the indorsee of a bill of exchange drawn by a company and signed by its president and secretary. It was brought up in error to the circuit court of the United States, for the southern district of Illiuois, and was decided April 10, 1882, by the supreme court of the United States, Mr. Justice (hay delivering the opinion of the court, and affirming the jUdgment of the lower court on demurrers filed on the grollnd that the instrument declared on