« AnteriorContinuar »
and to commence at the expiration of that term, the beneficiary of a life policy cannot maintain an inures to the benefit of the partnership, is by no action on such policy when it runs to the insured, means novel doctrine. In Perry v. Lorillard Fire his legal representatives and assigns. A note by the Ins. Co., 61 N. Y. 214, a policy-holder was declared | reporter discloses considerable diversity of opinion an involuntary bankrupt; and his property was on this subject. The contrary has been held in our assigned. Held, that this worked such a change in State and Pennsylvania. That all is not "fair in the title and possession of the property as avoided | love” was decided in Commonwealth v. Stratton, 114 the policy. In Glen and Hall Manuf. Co. v. Hall, Mass. 300, where it was held that one who gave a 61 N. Y. 226, the plaintiffs having fraudulently and young woman figs, containing “love powders," falsely advertised themselves as doing business at which were eaten by the recipient in ignorance No. 10 South Water street, Rochester, New York, of that fact, and her health was thereby injured, was which was the long-established place of business of guilty of assault and battery. In Faror v. Boston the defendant, were restrained from the use of and Lowell Railroad Corporation, 114 Mass. 350, the those words. In Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362, the defendants were held not liable for injury to a horse plaintiff having contracted to enter defendant's occasioned by the passsage in an ordinary manner service at a future day, on the arrival of the day of a train of its cars over a bridge spanning a hightendered performance, but the defendant repudiated way on which the plaintiff was driving, even though the contract; held, that this was a breach of the no warning of the train was given. In Hawes v. contract for which plaintiff had an immediate right Knowles, 114 Mass. 518, the defendant's servant of action, that the action was for damages and not | carelessly and wantonly drove defendant's coach for wages, and that it was not necessary for the plain against the plaintiff's wagon, and it was held that tiff after such breach to tender service or keep in the fact of the wantonness and mischievousness of readiness to perform. In Westcott v. Fargo, 61 N. the servant not only did not absolve the master from Y. 542, the plaintiff delivered to an express com liability, but enhanced the damages. In Daniels v. pany a package for transportation, and received a Newton, 114 Mass. 530, an action brought for the receipt providing that the defendant should not be breach of a written agreement to purchase land, liable for any loss or damage “to any box, package before the expiration of the time given for the puror thing for over fifty dollars, unless the true value chase, is not maintainable, although the vendce ab). thereof is herein stated," and that the party accept- solutely refused ever to complete the purchase. ing the receipt agrees to the condition. Held, that the reporter's note shows this to be in conflict with the condition did not include a loss occasioned by several other authorities, including Burtis v. Thompthe company's negligence. The court assumed that son, in our own State. It may be presumptuous for the condition was a part of the contract, and while | us to criticize such high authority, but we venture they admitted that carriers may by clear and dis to say it seems to us that the reason of the whole tinct expressions relieve themselves even from matter may be tested by one question, namely: liability for their own negligence, yet they held that What obligation is the vendee under to take the propthe words in question do not cover such a case. erty until the appointed time comes; and until that
Stepping across the border into old Massachusetts, time, of what force is his declaration that he will not we are greeted at the outset by the unquiet question take it ? Massachusetts is still sound on Sunday of false representations as to value. In Parker v. traveling, as appears from Connolly v. City of BosMoulton, 114 Mass. 99, it is said that false represen- | ton, 117 Mass. 64. Here the plaintiff worked at tations as to the condition, situation and value of night, and at nine o'clock of a Sunday evening was real estate, knowingly made by the vendor to the walking to see his employer, to ask him for daypurchaser, are not actionable unless the purchaser work instead of night-work, when he sustained an has been fraudulently induced to forbear inquiry as injury by reason of a defect in a highway. Held, to their truth, and in that case the means by which neither necessary nor charitable, and the action was he has thus been induced to forbear inquiry must be dismissed. In Doyle v. Lynn and Boston Railroad specifically set forth in the declaration. A very Company, 118 Mass. 195, a contrary result was singular case is Gray v. Boston Gas-light Co., 114 reached, because the plaintiff was going to Boston Mass. 149. The defendants, without plaintiff's con- to visit and render assistance to a sick friend. The sent, had so fastened a wire to a chimney of his plaintiff testified that he did not go to Boston to building as to render it unsafe, and eventually to see the great fire, although he knew it was then cause it to fall on a passer-by; the injured party | raging. A most curious instance of the application brought suit against the owner of the building, and of the law of place was afforded in Le Forest v. the owner, after notifying the company to defend, Tolman, 117 Mass. 109. The defendant's dog, and the company refusing, settled the action; held, owned and kept in Massachusetts, strayed into that the company was liable to the owner for the New Hampshire, and bit the plaintiff. The plainamount so paid, and for his expenses. In Bailey v. tiff brought an action for the injury in MassachuN. E. M. Life Ins. Co., 114 Mass. 177, it is held that 'setts, on a statute which affords a remedy in such
cases without proof of the scienter. But as there surance serpent has crept into the Eden of Connecwas no proof of the scienter, nor that the law of ticut. In Ryan v. World Mutual Life Ins. Co., 41 New Hampshire dispensed with it, it was held that Conn. 168, the agent, authorized to receive and forthe action would not lie in Massachusetts. A learned ward applications, countersign and deliver policies, note accompanies the case of Commonwealth v. Stur- and collect premiums, fraudulently put down antivant, 117 Mass. 122, on the admissibility of the swers to material questions in the application, which opinions of non-expert witnesses. The question was were untrue, and not given by the applicant. The " whether a witness, who is familiar with blood, applicant signed the application without reading it, and has examined with a lens a blood stain upon a and the company issued the policy on the condition coat, when it was fresh, can also testify that the that the statements in the application were true. appearance then indicated the direction from which Held, that the insurers were not bound. This it came, and that it came from below upward, may be good law, but we wish Judge Carpenter, although he has never experimented with blood or after discussing the question through five pages, other fluid in this respect.” The question was de would not make the rash assertion that “the case cided in the affirmative. Kendall v. City of Boston, before us is a case of life insurance.” Such incon118 Mass. 234, is an amusing case. The defend-siderate expressions are apt to weaken the confidence ants hired a hall and decorated it, for the purpose of the community in courts of justice. The quesof giving a public reception to the Grand Duke tion of the effect of the late war on life insurance Alexis. Among the decorations was a bust of the policies which were allowed to lapse during that economic philosopher, Benjamin Franklin, who, it protracted "unpleasantness," was discussed in is well known, was a “Boston man,” which bust Worthington v. Charter Oak Life Ins. Co., 41 Conn. was placed on the railing of an interior balcony. 372, where it was held that the state of war did not The plaintiff, Mrs, or Miss (which, does not ap excuse the non-payment of premiums. Two of the pear) Kendall, sat directly under this bust. The five judges dissented, and the result is in conflict programme requested the audience to arise and sing with other decisions. A very important and huOld Hundred, and as they did so the bust of Poor mane decision is Dickinson's Appeal, 42 Conn. 491, Richard, either keeping time to the music or nod- where it is held that a bastard has inheritable blood ding approval of the plaintiff's charms displayed | for the purpose of collateral as well as lineal debeneath him, came down with great force on the scent through him. The opinion in this case, by bust (shoulder, the report says) of the fair plaintiff, Judge Foster, is one of the most interesting in the and inflicted injuries by which the application of volume. another description of plaster was rendered neces- In Tennessee, in Webster v. Rose, 6 Heisk. 93, the sary. The lady, not deeming the sight of the noble "stay law" of that State was pronounced unconpersonage a sufficient recompense for her bruises, stitutional. This law, passed in 1861, it will be brought suit against the city, but failed to recover, remembered, postponed the operation of judgments because there was not sufficient evidence of the de- and decrees twelve months. In Nashville and Chatfendants' negligence. Doubtless it was the gravity | tanooga Railroad Co. v. David, 6 Heisk. 261, the of Benjamin's countenance that caused the bust to defendants were held not liable for loss of goods, fall. From this case the ladies should learn to look intrusted to them for carriage, occasioned by an overhead for a man's bust, as for so many years they unprecedented flood. In Harrison v. Willis, 7 Heisk. have looked under the bed for the man himself. In 35, a tax on lawsuits, to be paid by the unsuccessful Clark v. Burns, 118 Mass. 275, we have it decided party, was held constitutional. The same doctrine that the owner of a steamship is not an innkeeper, was held in Nebraska, in State ex rel., etc., v. Board. nor liable as a common carrier for a watch worn by of County Commissioners, 4 Neb. 537, except that the passenger by day and retained by him at night. there the tax was on the plaintiff. Perfect justice, Although a steamship is not an inn, yet one room it seems to us, would be attained by imposing the may be a “ disorderly house,” as is held in Common- tax on the successful party. In Phadenhauer v. Gerwealth v. Bulman, 118 Mass. 456.
mania Life Ins. Co., 7 Heisk. 577, a life insurance In the land of steady habits,” the first case policy was to be void if the assured should " die by quoted is noticeable - Jacques v. Bridgeport Horse suicide or by his own hands.” Held, that if the Railroad Co., 41 Conn. 61. The “melancholy | assured killed himself when incapable of distinJacques ” was a physician, who had sustained inju- guishing right from wrong, the policy was enforcearies while driving over defendants' track, on account ble. of its improper condition. He claimed to enhance In Nebraska, McClary v. The Sioux City and Pathe damages by showing that he was debarred by cific Railroad Co., 3 Neb. 44, is a striking case. A his injuries from following his profession for some railroad train, running three-quarters of an hour time. Defendants offered proof of reputation that behind time, was upset by a gust of wind, and his practice was unlawful, which was excluded. A plaintiff was injured. The wind did not extend to new trial was awarded for this reason. The life in-' that portion of the road where the train would have been if on time. Held, that the tardiness of the bad the benefit of it, of sufficient value to compensate train was not the proximate cause of the injury.
the students for bearing the entire expense of main
taining it. It has been subjected to much criticism, In Webb v. Hoselton, 4 Neb. 308, it was held that the
most of which has come from local or individual jealbona fide holder of a promissory note secured by a
ousy. Persons interested in rival schools, having a mortgage, takes the mortgage as well as the note different course of study, have sometimes indulged in discharged of equities between the original parties. comments upon the fact that its curriculum covered
In Prior v. Downey, 50 Cal. 388, a statute attempt only a single year, and those who favored the old ing to validate a judgment void for lack of juris
method of study in an office only have frequently
made unfavorable comparisous between the techuical diction, was held unconstitutional.
knowledge of its graduates, as compared with that of In Fletcher v. State, 49 Ind. 124, it was held that
clerks in their own offices. The day for such criticisms where an accused person testifies on his own behalf, is, however, over. The more than sixteen hundred his reputation for truth and veracity may be im graduates of the school, most of them practicing lawpeached, but not his general moral character. In yers, filling positions of trust and honor in every part this connection, we also note, Commonwealth v.
of the country, indicate that the training given was
thorough and practical. Nichols, 114 Mass. 285, where it is held that an
The chief labor of organizing the school fell upon accused person, testifying on his own behalf, waives
the late Amos Dean, who gave it seventeen years of his privilege as to criminating himself, and may hard work, and was sustained during all those years be cross-examined as to every thing relevant to by the vigor and strength of Judges Harris and Parker. the issue. Surely, this latter case makes the
On the death of Mr. Dean, in January, 1868, Isaac
Edwards, of this city, assumed his place and duties. accused worse off than any other witness. In
The school is well located; the city is more centrally Hollingsworth v. Swedenborg, 49 Ind. 378, held, that
situated than any other place of the same size; it comthe mother of a minor child is not entitled,
bines the advantages of city and country; it has many after re-marrying, to recover for the child's services, fine libraries; it is the capital of a great State; many in the absence of an agreement to pay her therefor. courts, State and Federal, including the Supreme Court In Smith v. Sloan, 37 Wis. 285, the limited power
and Court of Appeals, are held here; and it is not an of one member of a non-trading partnersbip to bind
expensive place to live in.
The course of instruction has been from the outset his partners by note is clearly defined. There must
substantially the same as that pursued in the German be express authority; it must be necessary to the
universities, in the study of the civil law. In order to carrying on of the business, or it must be usual in systematize their labors, the faculty distribute among similar partnerships. In Pringle v. Dunn, 37 Wis. themselves the diff'rent subjects and branches of the 449, the record of a mortgage, where the clerk had
law; and, by a suitable arrangement of topics and
time, two lectures a day, on different subjects, are neglected to record the names of the subscribing
delivered through the envire academical year; and as witnesses, was held ineffectual.
each professor retains the same subject, from year to We had intended to comprehend in one notice year, it is quite certain to be ably and fully prothis volume and the 20th, which is also published, sented. but we found this volume on examination too rich As an important aid in the application of legal prinin interest to be dismissed so summarily. There
ciples, two printed cases or questions are discussed
every week, after a reasonable time to examine them seems to be no abatement of the care and intelli
and prepare for the argument. In this exercise the gence of the editing, and every one of the one
student learns the bearing and application of legal hundred and seventy cases seems to have been
priuciples to the various transactions of daily life. He indispensable. In point of variety this series can learns the law as a principle, and as an applied rule of never be surpassed. Its pages display the different | actual justice. He studies it with a view to its intent degrees of civilization and intelligence in this
| and purpose; as a means of defending life, property country, from the surly Puritanism of New Eng
and personal rights.
Direct oral questions are also daily used to insure a land, displayed in its Sunday laws, to the motley
perfect understanding of legal principles; and from population and crude justice of Texas, which tries time to time written questions are submitted, dea man for murder with nine jurors who do not manding written answers. understand English.
After the new judiciary article and under it the statute of 1871 were adopted, the school promptly and
cheerfully accepted the spirit of the new rules of court. THE ALBANY LAW SCHOOL.
It insisted upon a prior course of study, in an office, A MONG the various institutions having for their
under private instructions, so as to insure a better A object the training of young men for practice at training in the school than can be gained by a simple the bar, the Albany Law School deserves particular clerkship in an office. As every lawyer knows, there mention. Although not the oldest law school in the are rival opinions in regard to the best method of country, it had at the time of its organization, in 1851, studying law. The old line insist upon the office as the no competition in this section of the country, except true place in which to learn the law, and others upon that of Harvard. It was started, and has always been a two years' course in a law school, as better suited to maintained, without endowment, and its steady pros- the end to be attained. The Albany School defers to perity from the first is an indication that the instruc- both opinions; it recognizes the advantages of the tion there given has been thought by those who have ' office as a means of learning the practice; and it regards the school as the true place in which to gain a not, however, on that account have invalidated the knowledge of the principles and spirit of the law. | note or destroyed its negotiability. A negotiable note
Among those well known at the bar and upon the may be made payable with interest from its date, and if bench or as prominent educators, who have been or more than lawful interest is stipulated for, it does are connected with the school, we will mention these : not, in Pennsylvania, make the contract void, but only Hon. Ira Harris, of the Supreme Court and United the usury. Hence, such a note is sufficiently certain. States Senate, who, from its opening until the day of It is payable at maturity with lawful interest. But in his death, kept his place as a teacher; Amos Dean, the paper now in question there enters as to the Esq.; Hon. Amasa J. Parker, of the Supreme Court;
amount an undoubted element of uncertainty. It is Isaac Edwards, Esq.; Hon. Wm. F. Allen, of the
a mistake to suppose that if the note was unpaid at Court of Appeals; Hon. William L. Learned, of the maturity the five per cent would be payable to the Supreme Court; Hon. Matthew Hale; Hon. H. E. holder by the parties. It must go into the hands of Sickles, State Reporter; Dr. Henry Coppee; President an attorney for collection. It is not a sum necessarily Eliphalet Nott Potter; Charles T. Spoor, Esq.
payable. The phrase "collection fee" necessarily implies this. Not only so, but this amount of percentage
cannot be arbitrarily determined by the parties. It NON-NEGOTIABLE PROMISSORY NOTES.
must be only what would be a reasonable compensaSUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, JUNE 11, 1877.
tion to an attorney for collection. This in reason and
the usage of the legal profession depends upon the Woods, plaintiff in error, v. NORTH ET AL.
amount of the note. Five per cent would, probably,
be considered by a jury as a reasonable compensation The insertion in a promissory note payable to order of the words "and five per cent collection fee if not paid
upon the collection of a note of $377. But if it were when due," destroys the negotiability of a note, and $3,000 they would, probably, think otherwise, and certhe indorser is not liable on it as such.
tainly so if it were $30,000. How then can this note TRROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Hunting
be said to be certain as to its amount, or that amount V don county.
unaffected by any contingency? Interest and costs of This was an action by the plaintiffs below, North
protest after non-payment at maturity are necessary and others, who were the holders of an accommoda
legal incidents of the contract, and the insertion of tion note drawn by Samuel Steffey, and indorsed by
them in the body of the note would not alter its negothe defendant below, Woods. The note upon which
tiability. Neither does a clause waiving exemption, the action was founded was in the following form, to
for that in no way touches the implicity and certainty wit:
of the paper. But a collateral agreement as here, do"377.00
HUNTINGDON, PA., May 5, 1875. pending, too, as it does, upon its reasonableness, to be “Sixty days after date I promise to pay to the order determined by the verdict of a jury, is entirely differof W. H. Woods, at the Union Bank of Huntingdon, ent. It may be well characterized like an agreement three hundred and seventy-seven dollars, und five per to confess a judgment was by Chief Justice Gibson, as cent collection fee if not paid when due, without defal “luggage," which negotiable paper, riding, as it does. cation. Value received. SAMUEL STEFFEY." on the wings of the wind, is not a courier able to
The protest of this note at its maturity had been carry. If this collateral agreement may be introduced waived by an indorsement on the back of the note with impunity, what may not be? It is the first step signed by Woods. It appeared upon the trial that in the wrong direction which costs. These instruthis note was but a renewal of another note, which ments may come to be lumbered up with all sorts of also was a renewal, the original note having been dis stipulations, and all sorts of difficulties, contention counted for the benefit of the drawer by the bank on and litigation result. It is the best rule, obsta printhe 28th of August, 1871, and renewed from time to
cipiis. Judgment reversed. time. The defense made by the defendant below at the
COURT OF APPEALS ABSTRACT. trial was, first, that the note, because of the insertion
APPEAL. of the clause, “and five per cent collection fee if not | Review of facts by general term.- The general term has paid when due," was not negotiable, and therefore the power to review upon the facts only when the appeal is defendant was not liable for his indorsement. The from the judgment of a referee or that of a judge who reception of the note in evidence was objected to has tried the case without the jury (Code, $ 48). Judgupon this ground, but the objection was overruled ment below affirmed. Van Valkenburgh, adm'r, v. and the note admitted, and defendant took a writ of Am. Popular Life Ins. Co. Opinion by Folger, J. error to this court. Other defenses not material here [Decided June 19, 1877.] were also set up.
CRIMINAL LAW. Opinion by SHARSWOOD, J.
1. Seduction under promise of marriage : evidence.It is a necessary quality of negotiable paper that it In the trial of an indictment for seduction under should be simple, certain, unconditional, and not sub promise of marriage, this question was put to proseject to any contingency. It would be a mere affecta cutrix: “Did you believe him when he had conneotion of learning to cite the elementary treatises and tion with you that he would marry you?" Held the decided cases which have established this princi proper as tending to make out that the consent of the ple. It is very important to the commercial commu prosecutrix to the intercourse was given under and by nity that it should be maintained in all its vigor. Ap reason of the promise of marriage. Judgment below plying it to the note sued upon in this case, we are of affirmed. Armstrong, plaintiff in error, v. People. opinion that it violates the rule. If it had been made Opinion by Folger, J. Church, C. J., dissented from payable at sixty days with five per cent it would have decision of court on ground that the evidence of the been objectionable as usurious on its face. It would prosecutrix was not supported.
2. Evidence: direction to witness to tell her own | death, and had a memorandum at the top to the effect story. The prosecutrix was directed to go on and that “the pass-book must be presented with this state in her own way what took place on the evening check." When the checks were delivered he said he of the intercourse. Held proper. Ib.
wanted it in this shape as he wanted the control 3. Evidence: pregnancy of prosecutrix.- Testimony of the money as long as he lived to receive the of the prosecutrix, an unmarried woman, that at the interest. He also said at the time: “You will time of the trial she was in the family way, held proper. want these books to get the money. I don't conIb.
sider them safe here;" and remarked to his son 4. Supporting evidence: what necessary. - The sup Robert: “You take them, and take care of them;" porting evidence required by the statute to corrobor | and, upon signing the checks, said: “Boys, this is ate the testimony of the prosecutrix in such a case something which will do you good when I am gone. must be as to two of the matters named in the act It will not do you any good while I am here." Robert and as to them only, namely, the promise of took the books, and they were by him placed in an enmarriage and the carnal conversation. The support velope on which was written the name of the father, ing evidence need be such only as the nature of these “bank-books to have when called for," and put in a matters admits. Circumstances tending to show the secure place. Held (1) not to constitute a valid gift to existence of the acts may be given and it is for the the sons, nor (2) to be sustainable in equity as a jury to determine their strength. Ib.
declaration of trust by the donor for the donees, or as 5. Supporting evidence : relevancy of.-It was claimed
(3) gifts by appointment or appropriation by the donor that the prosecutrix limited her testimony to a single
for the use of the donees. Judgment below affirmed. act of intercourse. Held, that it did not follow that
Curry v. Powers. Opinion by Miller, J. the supporting testimony should refer directly to the
[Decided June 19, 1877.] same act, general testimony not pointing to any particular time, but covering the period when the act was
LIFE INSURANCE. alleged to have occurred held sufficient. Ib.
1. Statements in application : construction of : liver [Decided June 5, 1877.]
disease.-An application for a life insurance policy conEMINENT DOMAIN.
tained the question whether applicant had “ever had Acquisition of land by railroad company: description disease of the liver?” Held, not to refer to a temporof lands in petition.-The provision of the statute ary,slight ailment, but to such an ailment as to indicate a (Laws 1850, chap. 140, s 14), relating to the acquire vice in the constitution, or so serious as to have some ment of land for the purposes of railroads, that the bearing on the general health and the continuance of petition must contain a description of the real estate
| life, and the circumstance that the attending physiwhich the company seeks to acquire, is not complied
cian of the applicant testified in an action on the with unless there is such a description of the land as policy, that previous to the making of the application will show its location and the precise boundaries
he had attended applicant for slight attacks which he thereof with certainty. And the petition itself must treated as affecting the liver, his testimony being in contain the description, and reference cannot be had
some respects in conflict with that of another physito another instrument to remedy defects in such de cian, who knew applicant and his general physical scription. Order below reversed. Matter of N. Y.
condition, would not authorize the taking of the case Cent. and H. R. R. R. Co. v. Rau. Opinion per
from the jury upon the question whether applicant Curiam.
was affected with liver disease. Judgment below [Decided June 19, 1877.)
affirmed. Cushman v. United States Life Insurance Co. LEASE.
Opinion by Earl, J. Agreements in : when grantee of lessor not bound by :
1 2. Usual medical attendant, who is : estoppel - In termination of:-By the terms of a lease the lessor re
answer to a question who was his usual medical atserved the right to sell the demised premises, and the tendant, applicant answered that Dr. Purdy was. It parties covenanted that upon the sale the lease should appeared that Dr. Purdy had always been his father's be determined and the term ended, and that the lessor family physician and he had called on him yearly for would pay the tenant a fair compensation for all per many years for advice and treatment. Dr. Greenleaf manent improvements made by such tenant, with a had attended him one brief illness, and he had reprovision for arbitration in case of disagreement. The ceived treatment from Dr. Ormsby, not over half a lessor sold and conveyed the premises without reser dozen times during some few years before his death. vation or exception. Held, that the lease was thereby Held, that the question was properly answered, and terminated, and the grantee took the premises free a statement in the proof of death made in accordfrom any claim on the part of the tenant, and that on ance with the requirements of the insurance company a refusal by the lessor to pay the claim of such tenant by the personal representative of applicant to the for his improvements, or to arbitrate the same, the insurance company, wherein it was stated by Dr. tenant had a right of action against the lessor for the Ormsby, who certified to the death and who attended value of the improvements. Judgment below af applicant in his last illness, that he was applicant's firmed. Morton v. Wier. Opinion by Allen, J.
family physician and had been from a time preced[Decided June 22, 1877. Reported below, 5 Hun, 177.) ing the policy, did not show breach of warranty or GIFT.
conclude the personal representative as to the truth Of check payable after death of donee: bank book. of the statement. Ib. A father intending to make a gift of $6,000 to each of 3. Practice: general objection to evidence.-A general his sons, John and Robert, delivered to each of them objection to the testimony of a witness will not raise a check for the amount named, and pass-books upon one on the ground that a proper foundation for the testhe several savings banks where he had moneys de- | timony was not laid, if by laying a proper foundation posited for a larger amount than the checks. Each the testimony would have been competent. Ib. check was made payable four days after testator's '[Decided June 5, 1877. Reported below, 4 Hun, 783.]