« AnteriorContinuar »
Court of the United States, speaking through proceed in rem against any property found Mr. Justice Story, beld that "the act duly within its jurisdiction for the purpose of authenticated shall have such faith and credit realizing any claim accrued to a citizen. as it bas in the State court from wbich it is Reference is had to personal judgments only. taken. If in such court it has the faith and
W. C. RODGERS. credit of evidence of the highest nature, viz: record evidence, it must have the same faith
BILLS AND NOTES – BONA FIDE PURCHAS. and credit in every other court.":37 But this
ERS-ALTERATION. early decision of the highest federal tribunal
STATTON V. STONE. has not been literally adhered to by either State or federal courts. In the later case of
Court of Appeals of Colorado, June 11, 1900. Thompson v. Wbitman,38 the court, referring
1. One who has signed and put into circulation &
negotiable note containing an unfilled blank, thus to the earlier ruling, said: This decision
rendering a change in the instrument increasing his has never been departed from in relation to liability, not discernible in its appearance, easy of ex. the general effect of such judgments where ecution, cannot be heard to allege that it was altered,
or that the plaintiff paid no consideration for it, in a the questions raised were not questions of
suit by one who has taken it after maturity from a jurisdiction. But where the jurisdiction of bona fide purcbaser. the court which rendered the judgment is 2. Want or failure of consideration cannot be assailed, quite a different view has pre
averred against an innocent purchaser of a negotiable
note before maturity, vailed. 69 And it is held, in a still later case,
THOMPSON, J.: The complaint alleged the that the act of congress and the first section
execution by the defendant, John H. Stone, of a of the fourth article of the constitution do promissory note for $200, payable on the 1st day "not prevent an inquiry into the jurisdiction of September, 1896, to himself; the indorsement of the court in which the judgment is ren
and delivery of the note by him to the Mutual dered to pronounce the judgment, nor into
Life Insurance Company of New York; its trans
fer, before its maturity, by the company, to the the right of the State to exercise authority
State Bank of Monte Vista; and its subsequent over the parties or the subject matter, nor transfer by the bank to the plaintiff, William 0. whether the judgment is founded in, or im Statton. Non-payment was averred, and judgpeachable for, a manifest fraud."'40 It is clear ment prayed. The answer alleged that a mafrom these authorities that the federal laws
terial alteration was made in the note by the in
surance company after it had passed from the are in no sense opposed to the views taken of
hands of the plaintiff, and while the company the validity of foreign judgments.
owned and held it; that the alteration consisted When a judgment has been recovered in a in so filling certain blanks as to make the note foreign State, it cannot, of course, be utilized payable with interest from date until paid at the as a basis of process in the nature of an ex- rate of 10 per cent. per annum. An alleged copy ecution, or similar writ, for the enforcement
of the note as it was when the company received
it is contained in the answer, and with reference thereof in any other State than that in which
to interest in its language was as follows: "With it is rendered. As to all other States, it is interest at the rate of per cent. per annum not a judgment, but an evidence of indebted from — until paid." The alteration charged ness, adjudicated and settled, and entitling
was the insertion of the figure 10" in the first
blank, and the insertion of the word "date" in the the plaintiff therein, when regularly obtained,
second. The answer admitted that the bank to a judgment in personam against the de
was a purchaser of the note, for value, before its fendant in the State of bis residence, or else maturity, but averred that it was transferred to where, he may be found.
the plaintiff after it becime due, and that he paid This discussion of the validity of foreign no consideration for it. The answer stated further
that the note was delivered to the company in judgments should not be understood as de
consideration of its agreement to issue to the denying the court of any State the authority to fendant a policy of insurance upon his life, but
tbat the company had failed to perform its agree37 Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 481, 484.
ment. The plaintiff demurred to the answer on 36 18 Wall. 457.
the ground that the facts which it stated did not 39 See M'Elmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312; Huntington
constitute a defense. The demurrer was overv. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 224; Pen. poyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714.
ruled. The defendant prevailed at the trial, and 40 Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U. S. 107, 10 Sup. Ct.
the plaintiff appealed. Rep. 269; First Nat. Bank v. Cunningham, 48 Fed. The defendant testified that the consideration Rep. 510.
of the note was the agreement of the agent of the
Mutual Life Insurance Company to issue cwo pol tion was made, it was itself the guilty party, and icies on his life for $3,000 each; that he signed a the court righteously held that its wrongful act blank application, and trusted the agent to fill it precluded a recovery in its favor. It is true that out; that it was not filled out in accordance with the plaintiff took the note after its maturity, but his directions, the applicant's age be exagger he acquired the title which the bank had, and ated, thus increasing the amount to be paid as that was good. All the rights and remedies of premium; that because of this error he refused to the bank in connection with the paper passed to receive the policies; that no rate of interest was the plaintiff with tbe transfer; and it is immateoriginally specified in the note; tbat the word rial what, if anything, he paid the bank for the "date" was in it when he signed it, but that the note. The legal title was in him, so that he could figure “10” was not; and that in verifying an an- maintain the suit in his own name, and the conswer which stated that both the figure and the sideration or want of consideration of the transfer word were absent he was mistaken. The otber is sometbing into which the defendant has no evidence leaves it in considerable doubt whether right to inquire. Walsh v. Allen, 6 Colo. App. the note was not completely filled at the time of 303, 40 Pac. Rep. 473. It is also entirely unimits execution, but leaves it entirely clear that when portant whether the insurance company perthe bank bought the note there was nothing in its formed its agreement with the defendant or not. appearance to excite suspicion, and that the bank Want of consideration or failure of consideration was an innocent purchaser of the paper. At the cannot be averred against an innocent purchaser close of the trial, the plaintiff requested the court of negotiable paper before its maturity. The to direct a verdict in his favor. The request was court erred before the trial in overruling the derefused, and a number of instructions given, con murrer to the answer, and it erred after the trial cerning which all that need be said is that there in refusing to direct a verdict for the plaintiff. was nothing in the case to justify them. The an Let the judgment be reversed. Reversed. swer stated no defense, and none appeared in the
NOTE.-Alteration of Negotiable Instruments by proof. Both on the pleadings and evidence the
the Unauthorized Filling up of Blanks, as Against a plaintiff was entitled to the judgment. The de
Bona Fide Holder. The alteration of negotiable in. murrer should have been sustained; but, as it was
struments is a much litigated subject and one of more not, and a trial was had, upon the evidence the than ordinary importance, since under the marvelous court should have instructed tbe jury to find for extension of the credit system to the transactions of the plaintiff. The difference between the testi trade and commerce such instruments are rapidly inmony of the defendant and his answer was imma creasing in use and favor as medium of exchange. It terial. Whether he delivered the note with one
is the general rule uncontradicted by authority that unfilled blank, as he testified, or two, as he an
any material alteration of a note will render it in.
valid as against any party thereto not consenting to swered, is of no manner of importance. Accord
such alteration, even in the hands of a bona fide ing to both answer and testimony, he signed and
holder. Horn v. The Bank, 32 Kan. 518; Middaugh put into circulation a negotiable promissory note,
v. Elliott, 61 Mo. App. 601; Bank v. Lawson, 31 N. Y. upfilled as to one or more blanks, thus rendering Supp. 18; Derr v. Keaough, 96 Iowa, 397, And this is easy of execution a change in the instrument in the case even though the alteration is in favor of the creasing his liability, but not discernible in the maker, as in changing the rate of interest from ten to appearance of the paper. Having, by his gross eight per cent. Middaugh v. Elliott, supra. In Misnegligence, put it into the power of the agent of
souri the courts have gone still further and held that the insurance company to impose upon the bank,
any alteration by the holder of a note, after delivery and to obtain its money upon the faith of his
and without the consent of the maker, however im
material in its nature, will vitiate the instrument and signature to a note regular and bonest in its ap
render the same void even as to innocent third per. pearance, he cannot be heard to allege in this suit sons where the note was not carelessly drawn with that it was altered. Rainbolt v. Eddy, 34 Iowa, blanks left unfilled. Kingston Savings Bank v. Bos. 440; Davidson v. Lanier, 4 Wall. 447, 18 L. Ed. serman, 52 Mo. App. 269; Bank v. Fricke, 75 Mo. 178; 380; Angle v. Insurance Co., 92 U. S. 330, 23 L. Haskell v. Champion, 31 Mo. 136. In the latter case, Ed. 556; Yocum v. Smith, 63 III. 321; Garrard v.
Scott, J., said: “The law dealing with the subject of Haddan, 67 Pa. St. 82; Abbott v. Rose, 62 Me.
the alteration of written instruments looks further 194; Van Duzer v. Howe, 21 N. Y. 531; Blakey v.
than to the materiality or the immateriality of the Johnson, 13 Bush, 197. “Whenever one of two
alteration. Aware of the danger of countenancing
the most trifling change it has not permitted those in. parties must suffer by the act of a third, he who
trusted with such instruments to alter them and has enabled that third person to occasion the loss afterward defend their conduct by alleging the im. must sustain it himself rather than the other in materiality of the alteration. As the nature and pur. nocent party.” Wyman v. Bank, 5 Colo. 30. We poses of contracts require that they should pags to the are referred to tbe decision of Hoopes v. Colling
hands of those who are interested in altering them to wood, 10 Colo. 107, 13 Pac. Rep. 909, as announc
the prejudice of those who executed them, and as the ing a different doctrine, but that it does not will
facilities for making alterations are numerous, and be seen by a glance at the opinion. There the
the difficulty of proving them is great, all means bank, in whose behalf the suit was brought, made
should be employed to impress on the minds of those
who are in possession of such paper a sense of its inthe alteration in the note. Instead of being an violability." Such is the general rule also in New innocent purcbaser of the paper after the altera Jersey. Bell v. Quick, 1 Green (N.J.), 312; Hunt v.
Gray, 10 Am. Rep. 282.
in blank, with spaces for the rate of interest and place The execution and indorsement of commercial of payment, and there existed no agreement to the paper in blank has given rise to questions of peculiar contrary, there would seem to be no good reason to difficulty upon some of which the authorities are in deny the right of the holder to fill up such spaces hopeless conflict. The execution of a negotiable in also; with this limitation, that in the case of interest, strument in blank, even as to any of its material no authority is conferred to insert a rate higher than terms, is, to say the least, unwise and dangerous, and that allowed by law. Bank v. Carson, 60 Mich. 437; is and should be discouraged by the courts. A nego Hoopes v. Collingwood, 10 Colo. 107. The insertion tiable instrument is more than a private contraet be. of a rate of interest in a blank left for that purpose tween the immediate parties thereto. Between the and unfilled by the maker or indorsee in executing date of its issuance and that of its maturity it has all the pote is a fruitful source of more unfortunate and the attributes of a medium of exchange and the pub. unnecessary litigation than arises under any other lic generally are interested in its careful, certain and phase of this question. This is probably due in the upámbiguous execution. It is the duty of the maker first place to the fact that notes are generally written of a note to guard not only himself but the public out upon forms or engraved with the usual terms of against frauds and alterations by refusing to sign ne such instruments so that if a man wishes to draw a gotiable paper made in such a form as to admit of note without specifying any rate of interest he must fraudulent practices upon them with ease and with draw his pen through the space left for that purpose. out ready detection. Van Duzer v. Howe, 21 N. Y. If he leaves the space blank difficulty arises, but this 538. It is the general rule that any one who signs his only when the rights of the maker clash with those of pame either as maker or indorser to a negotiable in. a bona fide holder. For as between the immediate strument executed in blank and delivers it to another parties it would seem to be the correct rule that thereby impliedly authorizes the holder to till it up where an instrument is properly filled out in all its as he pleases in any manner not inconsistent with the parts, with the exception of a blank space left for the character of the instrument itselt. Goodman v. insertion of the rate of interest, the holder acquires Simonds, 61 U. S. 343; White v. Alward, 35 Ill. App. no right to fill in such blank without authority from 195; Geddes v. Blackmore, 182 Iud. 551; Snyder v. the maker. The maker by leavivg the space blank Van Doren, 46 Wis. 602; Jones v. Insurance Co., 58 shows an evident intention that no rate of interest Ky. 58; Frank v. Lillienfeld, 33 Gratt. 377. This rule shall be inserted in the contract, and as between the applies as to the name of the payee (Bank v. Johos. parties it would be a clear case of a material alteraton, 97 Ala. 655); as to the amount (Gothrup v. Wil. tion such as would avoid an instrument in the hands liamson, 61 Ind. 599); as to time and place of payment of any one but a bona fide holder or his transferee, (Lowden v. Bank, 38 Kan. 533; Shephard v. Whet. and applying the general rule as to alterations would stone, 51 Iowa, 457), and also in some States as to the be a good defense even against the latter if the maker rate of interest. Visher v..Webster, 8 Cal. 109. For or indorser leaving such blanks unfilled were not es. instance, where A and B, as sureties of C, sign an in. topped by tbeir own negligence from setting up the strument in blank as to date, amount and time, and defense. This we believe to be the rule announced delivered it to C, the principal, with the agreement by the weight of authority. Bank v. Armstrong, 62 tbat it should not be filled up for more than $1,500.C Mo. 67; Rainbolt v. Eddy, 34 Iowa, 440; Visher v. filled it up for $10,000 and discounted it, and it was Webster, 8 Cal. 109. Another line of cases, however, held that the parties were bound. Fullerton v. hold that a forged insertion of interest in a blank for Sturgis, 4 Obio St. Where A, an accommodation that purpose in a negotiable promissory note will dis. maker for B, signed a note upon the upper left band charge the maker even as against an innocent purcorner of which were the figures $15, but the chaser for value before maturity. Washington Bank amount of which was left blank, with the understand. v. Ecky, 51 Mo. 272; Bank v. Stowell, 123 Mass. 196; ing that B should fill the blank so as to make it a note Bank v. Clarke, 51 Iowa, 264. In the case of Capital for $15. B, however, before delivery, added a Bank v. Armstrong, 62 Mo. 60, however, overruling cipher to the figures and filled in the blank with the the case of Bank v. Ecky, supra, it was held that the words "four hundred and fifty dollars”. Held, first, indorser or maker of a note will not be held bound that the figures were no part of the note, and an un. by a fraudulent alteration made subsequently to bis authorized change in them did not vitiate the noie; indorsement, unless through negligence blank spaces second, that A, having intrusted the blank to B, was, have been left in the instrument or the instrument has as against persons baving no knowledge of his want been so loosely drawn as to easily admit of alteration of authority, bound by the act of B. Johnson Har.
and in a manner pot calculated to place a man of ordi. vester Co. v. McClean, 57 Wis. 258. See also Ives v. nary prudence on the alert. The court gives a suc. The Bank, 2 Allen, 236; Diercks v. Roberts, 13 S. Car. cinct statement of the rule regarding the negligence 338; Hopps v. Savage, 69 Md. 402. But the authority of a maker in omitting to fill blanks in a negotiable in the holder to fill up blanks left in the instrument instrument: “Wbere a party to a negotiable instru. by the maker would not authorize him to make any ment permits it to be so loosely drawn as to render addition to the terms of the note, as by adding the the addition of words enlarging his liability a manner words "with interest,” nor to vary or alter the terms of comparative ease and such instrument is nego. of the instrument by erasing what is already written tiated before maturity to an innocent purchaser for or printed there. Ivory v. Michael, 38 Mo. 400; Angel value, the maker will be held bound by the altera v. Insurance Co., 92 U. S. 331; Coburn v. Webb, 56 tion. As, for instance, where a blank is not com. Ind. 100.
pletely filled but space is left for the easy addition of As far as the certainties of a note are concerned, the other words, in a manner not providing attention. date, the payee, the amount and the time of payment, This rule prevails in accordance with the maxim, a there should be no doubt as to the implied authority sound one alike in ethics as in law that 'where one of in the holder to fill them up as he pleases, in order two innocent parties must suffer, that party must be that the paper may be made perfect as a negotiable the sufferer who gave occasion to the commission of instrument. Moreover, if the whole instrument was the wrong.""
Ing. In this lecture the theory of evolution finds & strong champion. Botb Moses and Jesus may be con. sidered as committed to the doctrine of evolution. It was not pretended that the Jewish law was ideally perfect, the original of justice devinely revealed, but it was to be regarded as simply relatively excellent, and adapted to the state of society for which it was promulgated. This book is 8vo., bound in buckram, contains 270 pages. Published by Baker, Voorbis & Co., 66 Nassau St., New York.
Jewish Laws and Customs. Some of the Laws and
Usages of the Children of the Ghetto. By A.
view will follow, Psychopathia Sexualis, with Especial Reference to
Antipathic Sexual Instinct. A Medico forensic Study, By Dr. R. v. Krafft Ebing. The only authorized English Translation of the Tenth Ger: man Edition. Chicago, W. T. Keener & Co., 52 Randolph Street, 1900. Half Morocco, pp. 585.
Price, $5.00. Review will follow. A Treatise on the Law of Roads and Streets, by Byron
K. Elliott and William F. Elliott, Authors of "General Practice," "Appellate Procedure," “Tbe Law of Railroads." Second Edition. Indi. anapolis-Kansas City. The Bowen-Merrill Company, 1900. Sheep, pp. 1185. Review will follow.
JETSAM AND FLOTSAM.
TRADEMARK, We notice a statement in the September issue of the American Lawyer, that another law periodical is in. fringing upon its trade mark or copyright by calling itself the American Lawyers' Quarterly. We know nothing of the merits of the controversy, but if it is as stated by the American Lawyer, it would seem that the latter named periodical bas good grounds for complaint.
BOOK REVIEWS. OUTLINE STUDY OF LAW, THIRD EDITION.
This work is intended as a first book in law and a general introduction to the whole body of American jurisprudence. The subject is presented in a way calculated to attract the attention of the reader and wbet the appetite for more. The author with much elegance of language, with much condensation and brevity, discusses in part the following subjects: Popular fallacies regarding law and lawyers, public law of nations, international law in time of peace, and in time of war, the new magna charter, Roman law, Christianity and Roman law, legal evolution, domes. tic relations, corporations, wills, commercial paper, partnersbip, bai.ments, insurance, wills, leases, torts, shipping, copyrights and many other subjects of equal interest. These various subjects are lectures by Isaac Franklin Russell, D. C. L., LL. D., Professor of law in New York University. The lecture on popu. lar fallacies regarding law and lawyers is worth the price of the book. We quote a short paragraph from this lecture: “It is seriously urged that no lawyer has a right to represent a client or a cause that may happen tu be in the wrong. But how is the lawyer to know that his client is a rascal or tbat his suit is hopeless? Who can tell the end from the beginning? Sball he reach his conclusion from a one side inquiry? Hear the other side, is the rule which governs the procedure of the court. Shall the attorney be less thorough in his investigation? But he should know the law so as not to undertake a case that is bound to fail. True; but who does know the law? Not the judges of the United States Supreme Court; for dis. senting opinions appear in about one-third of the re. ported cases. Truth can only be ascertained by sin. cere and fearless inquiry. It cannot suffer from the honest zeal of the advocate, and these propositions apply as well to questions of fact as to questions of law. Why ask an attorney to prejudge a case and decide his own client to be in the wrong without hear: ing the other side? Why hold him responsible for a miscarriage of Justice as if he were the only officer of the court, and as if there were no judge and no jury? Shall we usurp their functions? The public has called him to no such responsibility." The lecture on Christianity and Roman law is especially interest.
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CHINA, The sequence of events in China this week has sim. plified what has been for some time, from the point of view of international law, an anomalous situation. Armed forces, military and paval, of the Great Pow. ers have been directed agaivst the irregular and, in a large measure, the regular troops of the Yellow Em. pire. And yet, diplomatically speaking, Europe is at peace with China. No doubt there were excellent reasons of policy for the maintenance of the theory that the Chinese Government has been co operating with the Western Governments in the suppression of the Boxers' insurrection. But in practice the point is soon reached at wbich this fiction of international law becomes no longer capable of bring supported, aud the tone and terms of the recent Chinese Imper. ial edicts have now undoubtedly brought that critical point very near to us. The nearest apalogue, how. ever, to the position of matters during the past few weeks is perhaps to be found at the time of the campaign of Dettingen, when an English king was leading English troops against the French while diplo. matic relations between the Court of St. James and that of Versailles were nominally undisturbed.London Law Times.
.....64, 73 MISSISSIPPI.
. 49, 51, 98 MISSOURI. NEW JERSEY.
..1, 4, 18, 19, 21, 47, 60, 79, 92 OKLAHOMA.......
52 SOUTH CAROLINA...
..24, 34, 39, 72 TENNESSEE. TEXAS 16, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 46, 50, 56
58, 61, 63, 67, 71, 78, 90, 95, 97 UNITED STATES C. C........ ..5, 14, 17, 54, 74, 81, 96 UNITED STATES OF APP........ .12, 62, 66, 69, 76, 77, 88 UNITED STATES D. C. .....
... 10, 11, 53 UNITED STATES S. C.......
.9, 13, 55, 85 UTAH.....
. 15, 42, 44, 59, 65, 84, 89 VIRGINIA.......
.....26, 57, 70, 86 1. ACTION ON BOND-Pleading-Extension of Time.A plea setting up extension of time of payments to the principal by the obligee of a bond must ghow a con. sideration for the agreement to extend, in order to give it legal effect as a release to the surety. In this respect it differs from the rule of pleading which ap. plies to a declaration.-PALMER V. WHITE, N. J., 46 Atl. Rep. 706.
2. ADMINISTRATION-Decedent's Estate-Mortgagee's Claim.-Where a mortgagee of land probated his claim against the deceased mortgagor's estate, unsecured creditors of the estate could not compel bim to first foreclose his mortgage before sharing in a pro rata dis. tribution among creditors ordered by the probate court, as secared, and unsecured claims are classed and pald on the same basis.-LOFLAND V. COWGER, Ark., 57 S. W. Rep. 797.
3. ADVERSE POSSESSION – Boundary Agreement.Where two coterminous proprietors, disputing over a boundary line, agreed to abide by a certain survey, and moved their buildings and fences accordingly, one proprietor's possession of the disputed land became from that time adverse to that of the other.SCHWARTZER V. GEBHARDT, Mo., 57 8. W. Rep. 782.
4. ADVERSE POSSESSION – Mortgagor against Mort. gagée.-Where a mortgagor made interest payments to a mortgagee within 20 years prior to an action to foreclose, though more than that time bad elapsed since the maturity of the mortgage debt, such action was not barred by the statute of limitations (section 16), providing that entry to lands shall be made within 20 years after the right to enter shall accrue, since the possession of the mortgagor while he continued to make payments was not adverse to that of the mort. gagee.-DEPEW Y. COLTON, N. J., 46 Atl. Rep. 728.
5. ASSIGNMENT-Partially Executed Contract.-Anas. signment of the right to do the work specified in a contract, made after a portion of such work had been completed by the assignor, refers only to the work still to be done, and does not vest in the assignee the right to recover the retalned percentage due on the work previously done.-CONNOLLY V. DONBAR, U.S.O. C., E. D. (Penn.), 102 Fed. Rep. 44.
6. ASSIGNMENT FOR CREDITORS. - Where a debtor made an assignment for the benefit of his creditors, but the assignee never filled an inventory, or qualified as such, and the assignor subsequently settled with his creditors, the assignee had no lien on the property for a debt due him, as his title ceased when the trust failed.-MORAN V. MCINERNEY, Cal., 61 Pac. Rep. 575.
7. ATTACHMENT-Levy-Equity of Redemption.-An attachment is leviable on an equity of redemption in lands.-BRITISH & AMERICAN MORTG. CO. V. NORTON, Ala., 28 South. Rep. 31.
8. BANK CHECK-Oollection - Payment.-Where the payee of a check put it in the hands of a bank for col. lection, and the drawee bank, on receiving it by mall,
marked it "Paid," gent a draft to the collection bank for the amount, and surrendered the check to the drawer, after charging the item to his deposit account, the check was paid, as between the payee and drawer, though the draft was dishonored and the paying bank falled.-O'LEARY V. ABELES, Ark., 57 8. W. Rep. 791.
9. BANKRUPTCY-Jurisdiction of District Court over Suit.-Jurisdiction of civil actions at law and plenary sults in equity to determine title to and reduce to pos. session alleged assets of a bankrupt is not included in the clauses of $ 2 of the bankruptcy act of 1898, which conter upon district courts of the United States power to bring in and substitute additional parties in pro. ceedings in bankruptcy, to make orders, issue process and enter judgments necessary for the enforcement of the "provisions of this act" and "to cause the estates of bankrupts to be collected, reduced to money and distributed, and determine controversies in relation thereto, except as herein otherwise provided," since $ 23 of the act is intended to define the jurisdiction of such courte over such suits.-BARDES v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF HAWARDEN, IOWA, U. S. 8. C., 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1000.
10. BANKRUPTCY-Opposition to Discharge.--To sug. tain specifications in opposition to a bankrupt's appli. cation for discharge, on the ground of his failure to keep proper books of account, it is not suficient to show that the true state of his affairs could not be as. certained from the books as kept, but the evidence must fairly prove that his mode of keeping them was with a fraudulent intent to conceal his financial condition, and in contemplation of bankruptcy.-IN RE BRICE, U. 8. D. C., 8. D. (Iowa), 102 Fed. Rep. 114.
11. BANKRUPTCY-Preferences-Payment of Money.Payment of a debt in money is a transfer of property, within the meaning of Bapkr. Act 1898, § 60a, providing that a debtor shall be deemed to have given a preter. ence if, being insolvent, he has made a transfer of any of his property, and the effect of the enforcement of such transfer will be to enable one of his creditors to obtain a greater percentage of his debt than other creditors of the same class.-IN RE SLOAN, U. S. D. C., 8. D. (Iowa), 102 Fed. Rep. 116.
12. BANKRUPTCY-Requiring Bankrupt to Surrender Property.-A court of bankruptcy has power and ju. risdiction to make an order, after due hearing of the parties, requiring the bankrupt to pay or deliver to his trustee in bankruptcy a sum of money found to be in his possession or control, and constituting assets of his estate in bankruptcy, and which he has not sur. rendered or accounted for, and to enforce his obedi. ence to such order by commitment as for contempt.IN RE SCHLESINGER, U. S. C.-C. of App., Second Circuit, 102 Fed. Rep. 117.
13. BANKRUPTCY-Summary Jurisdiction-Return of Property.-Goods in actual possession of a bankrupt at the time of his adjudication as such, and at time of the reference of the case to a referee, who directs them to be locked in a store, are in custody of the United States court, from which they cannot be taken upon any process from a State court.-WHITE V. SCHLOERB, U.S. 8. O., 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1007.
14. BILLS AND NOTES--Delay in Presentation.- A bona fide holder of a check is under no obligation to the drawer to present it for payment within a reasonable time, and is not prejudiced by delay in doing so, except where the fund has been lost by failure of the bank.ANDRUS V. BRADLEY, U. S. C.O., E. D. (Penn.), 102 Fed. Rep. 54.
15. BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS-Bond and Mortgage.-Where a bond and mortgage given by de. fendant K to plaintiff at the time of procuring a loan both provided for the payment of a stipulated sum per month as interest on the loan. K and his succes. sors in Interest were entitled to credit against the prin. cipal only for payments of dues and premiums, and pot to deductions for interest pald on the loan. The