1. Where a trunk and bundle of goods
were delivered to the agent of a
railroad company at B., labelled
"L. W. B., care of S. U., Troy," no
direction being given to the agent,
except by the labels; Held, that the
acceptance of the goods by the rail-
road company, implied a promise
on their part that they would carry
the goods to Troy and deliver them
to U.; and that a delivery thereof to
U. was a full performance of their
contract, whatever might become of
the goods afterwards. And this,
notwithstanding the goods deliv-
ered to U. were received and taken
charge of by him as the agent of
the company. Bristol v. The Rensse-
laer and Saratoga Railroad Co., 158
2. In an action of trespass, against a
railroad company, for breaking and
entering the plaintiff's close, where
the defendants justify under and by
virtue of their charter, on the ground
that the land in question was neces-
sary for the construction of their
railroad, and that the defendants.
by their agents, surveyors and engi
neers, entered for the purpose of
making surveys, &c. an averment
in the plea, that there was a dis-
agreement between the plaintiff and
the defendants as to the price of
the land, and that while such disa-
greement existed, J. McL., first
judge," on the petition of the de-
fendants, in writing, duly issued and
delivered his warrant," &c. is a
sufficient averment of the present-
ing of a petition. Polly v. The Sara-
toga and Washington Railroad Co.,
449
3. Where the charter of a railroad
company directed that in case of a
disagreement between the company
and the owner of any land taken for
the construction of the road, as to
the value of the land, upon the pre-
senting of a petiton to a judge, the
latter should direct the sheriff to
give public notice in at least one
newspaper printed in the county,
that on a specified day he would,
together with the county clerk, at
the clerk's office, proceed to draw
a jury, to appraise the damages of
the owner of the land; Held, that
this was all the notice of the draw-
ing of the jury which the owner was
entitled to; and that written notice
was not necessary to be served on
him.
disagreement between the company
and the owner of any land taken for
the construction of the road, as to
the value of the land, twelve pe: sons
should be summoned, six of whom
should be drawn to form a jury for
the appraisal of the value of such
land; Held, that it was sufficient if
the sheriff summoned all of the
twelve who were in life, and within
his jurisdiction, and six could be ta-
ken by lot from that number, free
from exceptions. And that a return,
by the sheriff, as to one of the num-
bcr, that he was a non-resident of
the county, was a sufficient excuse
for not summoning him.
7. The judge before whom proceed-
ings of this nature are prosecuted,
has the power to continue the same
by adjournment from day to day,
although such power is not expressly
given, by the charter of the com-
ib
pany.
8. In trespass quare clausum fregit,
against a railroad company, a plea
justifying the entry, on the ground
that the land was necessary for the
construction of the road, and setting
out the proceedings for the ap-
praisement of the plaintiff's dam-
ages, can not be demurred to for
surplusage, because it mentions the
claims of other land owners, for
damages, with which the plaintiff
has no concern. In such a case the
maxim utile per inutile non vitiatur
applies.
9. Where proceedings for the appraisal
of damages, commenced before the
first judge of a court of common
pleas, were directed by him to be
transferred to the county judge, on
one day's notice being given to the
owner of the land, and the land-
owner subsequently appeared before
the county judge without raising
the objection that he had not had
notice of the transfer; Held, that
such notice be:ng for his benefit,
such appearance by him was a wai-
ver of it, or an admission that notice
had been regularly served.
Ser CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1.
PLEADING, 1, 2, 3, 4.
1. Although it is not made the duty of
a sheriff, upon a party coming to re-
deem premises from a sale upon ex-
ecution, to compute the interest on
the purchaser's bid and to ascertain
the precise amount to be paid by
such party; yet if he, or his duly
authorized special agent, voluntarily
undertakes to make the computa-
tion, and in so doing commits an er-
ror, and thereby misleads the party,
who makes no computation himself,
in consequence of which he makes
a short payment, and the sheriff ac-
cepts the same as a payment in full,
the redemption will be held valid
and effectual, notwithstanding the
sum paid by the redeeming party is
less than the amount actually due.
Hall v. Fisher,
17
A court of equity has the power to
accord relief to the owner of real
estate coming to redeem his lands
sold on execution, from the conse-
quences of a mistake of fact, on the
part of the sheriff or his special
agent, by means of which mistake
such party has been misled, and has
thereby failed to comply with some
one of the requirements of the re-
demption act
A deputy sheriff who sells real es-
tate upon an execution, has the right
to authorize another person to com-
pute the amount necessary to be paid
in order to redeem the land, and to
direct the redemption money to be
deposited with such person, as his
agent.
ib
Where a purchaser of real estate
sold by a sheriff on execution, being
the fourth part of an ore bed, of
which such purchaser already owned
three-fourths, with knowledge of an
attempt having been made by the
judgment debtors to redeem the
premises, and that the latter consid-
ered the redemption valid, failed to
give them notice of his objection to
the redemption, in time to enable
them to procure a redemption
through a friendly creditor; and
stood by for several years and suf-
fered the judgment debtors to ex-
pend money on the premises, in the
erection of valuable buildings, &c.
under the belief that they were part
owners of the property with him,
without making known to them his
own claim to the debtors' share of
such property, under his purchase
at the sheriff's sale, in the meantime
1. Moneys subscribed for the rebuild-
ing of a church edifice are subscribed
for the benefit of the religious cor-
poration, and belong to it. The
corporation is the equitable if not
the legal owner of such moneys;
and being the real party in interest,
a suit for the recovery thereof
should be brought in its corporate
202
Barnes v. Perine,
The defendant subscribed $150 to-
wards a fund for the rebuilding of a
church edifice. He afterwards at-
tended several meetings of the
congregation (he being a member
thereof) and of the subscribers to
the fund, at which it was resolved to
erect a new house of public worship,
and at which a building committee
were elected, and that committee
were directed, with the advice and
consent of the trustees, to erect a
new church edifice, and to make the
necessary contracts for that purpose.
The defendant also took a part in
the proceedings of these meetings.
The building committee erected a
new church edifice, and expended
more than $6000 thereon, upon the
faith of the subscriptions, without
any knowledge or notice on their
part, or on the part of the trustees,
that the defendant refused to pay
his subscription. Held, that this was
a case of services rendered and ex-
penses incurred by the trustees at
the request and by the direction of
the defendant, for which an action
would lie, upon the subscription
paper.
3. Held also, that the subscription pa-
per, and the subsequent request and
direction of the defendant to the
corporation, considered together,
established a conditional promise to
pay $150 provided the trustees of
the church would erect a new church
edifice; and that the condition hav-
ing been performed by the corpora-
tion, before the retraction of the
promise, the defendant was liable to
pay the sum subscribed by him. ib
4. Held further, that the agreement of
the defendant might also be regard-
ed as an offer or proposition, and the
building of the church as an ac-
ceptance thereof.
ib
|