Illinois; occasionally visited the board of trade in Chicago with t4e plaintiff; and the plaintiff testifies unqualifiedly that the defendant was familiar with the methods of busip6Ss ,upon the board. This testimony is not contradicted by the defendant, and he nowhere in his testimony attempts to deny knowledge of such methods of business. He was in constant communication, with the plaintiff, gave orders for purchases and sales by letter and telegraph. received statements from the plaintiff as often as transactions took place, and no other oonclusion is consistent with all the facts, than that he must have known the manner in which various trades made in his behalf, 'Yere closed out. The case, therefore, in its facts upon this point, is unlike that of. WiUiarv. Irwin., , Appreciating, as I dOtRs indicated in the bly entailed u pOI!- the defendant by an. adverse ruling ,in this case" the court feels constrained to hold, upon the testimony as it ia presented, .and upon what it conceives to be the weightofa.uthority, especially in this circuit, defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the amount of the plaintiff's claim for advances .and cpmmissiona ip the transactions in dispute.
S'rARtt and othera. '
. ' ,'I
C(Jirouit . (Jourt, D.OoWrado;' :May 4,1887.)
, :A creditor is:aHiJ,>el'ty,to apply payments of a debtor'up,on anyone of the ,the debtor names the debt oJ;! is making
DEB'l'8. ;" ' Where there are'two debts; one secured and the other l1Dsecured, tho court will as a rule apply B.payment upon the,unsecured
The renewal by dne partner of a'partnership nOte, after 'dIssolution' of 'the , , partnership, is bhuling upQn 'the co-partner, if the latter!recognized and con· ,santed to it.
Motion for New Tri8J.. ,.},f. B. Carpenter, for plaintiff. ,J. W. lforyur, for
BREWER, J. In this matter. of Sanborn against motion for new trial on two grounds, first.that one pa.yment of six hundred and odd dollars was not credited note of $650, but on som.eothedndebtedness of the other partner. There is nothing in tpat;, t4e .creditor is at AWJl'ty to apply payment upon any, one of the obligations of his debtor, unless the debtor nlj.m13S the debt on which he is making the payment. Even if he had not made that application himself, where there are two debts, ope secured and the other unsecured, the cour,t ordinarily will ap,ply a payment upon the unsecured debt; and the claim here is that this
UNITED STATES tJ. MOLLOY.
note was .the debt of defendant's partner, upon which defendant was carity. . . The other point is equally unsound. The claim is that the note for 8650, upon which judgment was rendered, was a renewal, and that as a renewaL it was not binding on this particular defendant. Stark, because of the prior dissolution of the partnership, a fact which was known to the creditor at the time he took it. The truth of the matter is, the newal was consented to by this defendant. It was given as a renewal of a part of a $2,000 note upon which confessedly both defendants were liable. The renewal was some time about the twentieth of August. On the third .of August this defendant writes to his partner: "Friend Sanborn: Yours of twenty-eighth July just at hand. I wrote you some days ago I could not provide for payment of note due 18th, Exchange Bank; and I ca:nDot. It must be renewed." August 18th, Exchange Bank, 82,000, that was the note upon which both defendants were liable, and this defendant writes to his partner saying, "It must be renewed." And on the twenty-seventh of August, after the renewal, he writes: "Yours twentieth August received. I am surprised you should renew those notes for so short a time, as you must be aware collections are coming in very I cannot meet them.". Obviously both before and after he recognized and consented to the renewals. The JDotion will be overruled.
STATES. ",. MOLLOY.
(OVrcuit Oourt, E. D. Missouri, E. lJ. April 20, 1887.1
Where the state statutes require voters to appear. before the register and take a prescribed oath before registering, it is an offense indictable under section5512, Rev. St. U.S., for a recorder of voters to kIlowingly, Willfully. and fraudulently enter in the registration books, or cause to be entered therein, the name of a person as a qualified voter who has not appeared before him and applied for registration, nor taken the oath required by law. Where the act is proved to have been done and willfully. and not m'erely through madvertence or ignorance of offiCial duty, a fraudulent motive may be inferred. .
3. SAM1j:-IGNORANCE AND INADVERTENCE.
To .register a voter who has not appeared or taken the oath is not a criminal offense, however, if done without any fraudulent or criminal motive, but ' merely through inadvertence or ignorance of official duties, or of the manner in which they should be performed. .. The mere writing ofa person's name in the registration books is in itself no uffen$e if the person whose name is written appesrs and applies for registration, OJ.' takes the·9ath, and expressly or by neces$ary implication requests the officer to write his name. ., Where 'pe1"sonsappear before a register and give false names or places of reSidence, ·a.nd apply for registration under such nRUles or from such places of residllnce, and the register is imposed upon a!14 places their names upon the registl'&tionbooks as dUly qualified voters. he'1s guilty of no offense.
4. SAM:q-WRITING VOTER'S NAME·
SAME':'-DElCEPttON OF REGISTER.