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
was the bill of a company and not of the defendants. Where the bill of ex change declared on is manifestly the draft of a company, and not of the Indibe held to bind the agents viduals by whose hands it is subscribed, it personally, and an allegation that defendants made" their" bill of exchange is inconsistent with the terms of the writing sued on audmade part of the record. . The cases cited in the opinion were: Sayre v. Nichols, 7 Cal. 535; Carpenter v. Farnsworth, 106 Mass. 561; Dillon v. Barnard, 21 WalL 430; Binz v. Tyler, 79 Ill. 248.
Patents for Inventions-Prior Knowledge and Use. VINTON 'D. HAMILTON, 21 O.G. 557. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Ohio. The decision of the su_ preme court was rendered January 8, 1882. Mr. Justice Woods delivered the opinion of the court, to the effect that the patent granted for an improvement in the manufacture of iron for furnace slag was invalid, in view of facts developed hy the testimony as to knowledge and use of the invention therein claimed by others prior to the invention or discovery of the patentee, and that in a process of reducing slag the application for the first time to a cupola furnace to accomplish the same end is devoid of invention. When applied to a cupola furnace the cinder-notch performe:l the same function in the same way. A. C. McCallum, for appellants. T. W. Sanderson, for appellees. Case cited: Pearce v. Mulford, 102 U. S. 112;
Assignment-Contest-Matter in Dispute. CHATFIELD 'D. BOYLE, 4 Morr. Trans. 81. Appealfl.'om the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Tennessee, decided in the supreme court on March 8, 1882, Mr. Chief Justice ll':aitedelivering the opinion of the court to the effect, that where certain creditors of a mercantile firm, secured by assignment, bring a suit on behalf of all creditors secured thereby to set aside a prior assignment, and on an adverse decision appeal, the matter in dispute is not the whole amount of the fund in court, but simply their proportionate share of the fund that would be realized in the event of their success, and no part of the fund that would go to creditors, not before the court, can be taken into account. The cases cited in the opinion were: Terry v. Hatch, 93 U. S. 44; Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208; Rich v. Lambert, 12 How. 347; Oliver v. Alexander, 6 Pet. 143; Stratton v. Jarvis, 8 Pet. 4; Paving CO. Y. Mulford, 100 U. 8.148.