452
FEDERAL REPORTER.
have made a similar one at the place of her domicile. It is true that at the time of the judgment she could have made such a contract in Massachusetts, but no notice was taken of this fact by the court. The Kentucky cases in which judgments have been allowed against married women on antenuptial contract.s have, of course, disregarded the theory that it is necessary that the person against whom a judgment is rendered should then have capacity to contract. In these cases the wife had lost all capacity of contracting by reason of the marriage. See, also, Husbands v. Bullock, 1 Duvall, 21. The plaintiff may have judgment against Mrs. McCarthy, and also against defendant, her husband, but as to him only to the extent of assets which he may hereafter receive from his wife by reason of his relation of husband.
FRELINGlIUYSEN,
ReceIver, etc., v.
BALDWIN
and others.
(District Court, D. New Jersey.
May 24,1883.) NEGLECT OF. DIRECTORS TO DIS-
1.
SURETY ON CASHIER'S BOND COVER CONDITION OF BANK.
LIABILITY -
2.
SA:lom-FAILURE
of
DIRECTORS TO VOLUNTEER INFORMA'fION.
A plea that substantially alleges that a cashier's bond is invalid, as against the sureties, because the corporation did not volunteer information of the that the cashier was also a director of the bank, is also bad. Magee v. Manhattan Co. 92 U. S. 93, followed.
In Debt. On demurrer to plea, etc. A. Q. Keasbey, for the receiver. G. <t R. W. ParkM', for defendant Dodd. NIXON, J. This suit is brought by the receiver of the Mechanics' National Bank of Newark against the cashier and his sureties on their bond to the corporation, dated May 80, 1865, the condition of which was that "if the said O. L. Baldwin shall make known to the president of said The Mechanics' National Bank, for the time being, without delay, any false error, or mistake which he shall or may d.iscover, or know to have taken place, in any book or books belonging to the said corporation, or in any transactIon, matter, or thing relating to their business and affairs, shall faithfully keep
IfnEI,INGHUYSEN V. BALDWIN·
453
4:54
FEDERAL BBPORTEB.
The provisions of the·national banking act require that a certificate of the election of all directors of, national b.anks shall be annually filed .'in the office of the comptroller of the currency. U the surety thought that the holding of such an office increased the temptations of the casbierto act fraudulently, he could easily have obtained the inform.ation by application to the comptroller. It does not appear that he made any inquiry of the president or directors. It is not necessary to determine what would. have been the legal result if he had inquired and had been misinformed. The plea then substantially alleges that the bond is invalid, as against the sureties, because the corporation did not volunteer information of the fact. The decision of the supreme court in the case of Magee v. Manhattan L. Ins. 00. 92 U. S. 93, is authority for holding that We fourth plea is also bad. The demurrer to each of the pleas is sustained.
TURNER 11. MERlDAN FIRE
INs. Co.
{Oircuit Oourt, D. Rhode bland. March 9, 1883.} 1. CoNTRAcT-WHEN VOIDABLE.
In aU contracts where stipulations avoiding the same are Inserted for the 801e benefit of one of the parties, the word" VOId " is to be construed as thouga the contractread "voidable." 2. BAME-FlRE INSURANCE-POLICY, WHlllN VOIDABLE-DoUBLE INSURANCE.
Where a policy by its terms provided that it should be void on a breach of any of its conditions, its legal effect is simply to render it voidable at the election of the insurer, and the insurer may waive the forfeiture and continue the policy in force.
I.
BAME-POLICy-BREACH OF COVENANT-EFFECT 01'.
Where a policy of insurance contained the provision that it should be void in case the insured should have made or should thereafter make any other in. surance on the property without the written consent of the company, and no notice was given of any other insurance, nor was the fact discovered until after the fire, the policy is voidable at the election of the insurer.
At Law. Motion for It new trial. Stephen Essex, for plaintiff. Oscar Lapham, for defendant. Before LOWELL and COLT, JJ. Com, J. On July 9, 1879, the defenihnt issued It policy of insurance to the plaintiff, running for five years. Afterwardlil, on Novem-