« AnteriorContinuar »
INNKEEPER, Damages under Lord Campbell's Act and Amendment Liability of: loss of property by guest: notice limiting Act, 9 and 10 Vict., c. 93; 27 and 28 Vict., c. 95, s. 2: liability: 26 and 27 Vict., c. 41, 8s. 1 and 3: conpayment into court: mode of distribution among widow tributory negligence. – Plaintiff was guest at an inn and children of deceased.-The widow and administra- | belonging to defendant, and, on going to bed, left his trix of J.S., who was killed in a railway aocident, bedroom door unlocked. During the night a thief brought an action against the railway company under entered the room and stole property of plaintiff's to Lord Campbell's Act, and the company paid £8,500 the value of £130. The property consisted of a gold into court under the Amendment Act (27 and 28 Vict., |
watch and trinkets, which plaintiff had left on a chest c. 95, s. 2), which the widow accepted in full. The
of drawers near the door, and money which he had deceased left four infant children. The widow and left in a pocket of his clothes. Plaintiff might bave children had been entirely dependent for their main
placed the property in the drawers and locked it up. tenance on the professional earnings of the deceased.
| By the 26 and 27 Vict., c. 41, 8. 1, no innkeeper shall A special case being presented to the Chancery Division | be liable to make good to his guest any loss or injury for advice as to the proportion in which the compen
to property brought to his inn to a greater amount sation should be divided, held, that, by analogy to than £30, except when such property shall have been the statute of distributions, the widow should take "stolen, lost, or injured through the willful act, neg. one-third and the children the remaining two-thirds.
lect or default of such innkeeper, or any servant in his Chancery Division, June 8, 1877. Sanderson v. Sander
employ." Section 3 requires the innkeeper to exhibit son, 36 L. T. Rep. (N.S.) 847.
a copy of section 1 in a conspicuous part of the FRAUD.
entrance to his inn, in order to claim the protection Organization of corporation: fraudulent prospectus .
of the statute. Defendant caused a notice purporting
to be a copy of section 1 to be placed in the entrance non-disclosure of contract by promoters: measure of
to his inn, but the word "act" was omitted. Plaintiff damages: 30 and 31 Vict., c. 131, S. 38. — Section 38 of 30 and 31 Vict., c. 131, provides that “Every prog
sued defendant to recover the loss of his property, and
defendant paid £30 into court. Held, (1) that the pectus of a company, and every notice inviting per
omission of the word “act” in the notice was material, sons to subscribe for shares in any joint-stock com
and that the innkeeper was, therefore, not protected by pany, shall specify the dates and the names of the parties to any contract entered into by the company, or
the statute; (2) (reversing the decision of Kelly, C. B.)
that there was evidence for the jury of contributory the promoters, directors, or trustees thereof, before the issue of such prospectus or notice, whether subject
negligence on the part of plaintiff. Court of Appeal,
June 26, 1877. Spice v. Bacon, 36 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) to adoption by the directors of the company or other
896. wise; and any prospectus or notice not specifying the same shall be deemed fraudulent on the part of the promoters, directors, and officers of the company
RECENT AMERICAN DECISIONS. knowingly issuing the same, as regards any person
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.* taking shares in the company on the faith of such
CONFLICT OF LAW. prospectus, unless he shall have had notice of such
Husband and wife: curtesy: will: statute of frauds.contract.” The contracts which must be disclosed to
By the laws of Minnesota a married woman's propcomply with this section are contracts which are cal
erty is held by ber for her sole and separate use, “but culated to influence persons reading a company's pros
shall not be disposed of by her without the consent of pectus in making up their minds whether or not they
her husband." A married woman domiciled in Minwill apply for shares in it. Therefore, where the pro
nesota, and owning real estate there and in Pennsylmoters of a tramway company entered into agree
vania, made a will disposing specifically of her Pennments with the contractors for the company's works,
sylvania property; the will was executed in Minneby which the former were to receive large sums out of
sota, under the hands and seals of wife and husband, the contract price of the work, and these agreements
"who hereby consents to and approves of the foregowere not disclosed in the prospectus, in an action
ing will." Held, that the husband was barred of his brought by a shareholder against promoters to recover
curtesy in the real estate in Pennsylvania. The will the amount paid for his shares, held, by the Common
as to the husband was an instrument signed by the Pleas Division, that these agreements ought to have
party to be bound, and was not obuoxious to the statbeen disclosed; and held further, that the plaintiff
ute of frauds. His joinder in the will was a release was entitled to recover the amount claimed. In the Court of Appeal, held by Cockburn, C. J., aud
of his curtesy, irrespective of the Minnesota laws.
McBride's Estate. Brett, L. J., that the agreements were within the sec
CORPORATE BONDS. tion, and ought to have been disclosed, Kelly, C. B., and Bramwell, L. J., dissenting.
Assignment of.-A bond of a corporation, payable
Held further, by Cockburn, C. J., and Bramwell and Brett, L. JJ.,
to an obligee named or his assigns, is assignable under
the act of May 28, 1715, so as to enable the assignee to that, assuming the agreements to be within the sec
sue in his own name. Such bond is assignable in tion, the company being in liquidation, and a large debt on debentures being unpaid, there was sufficient
equity by parol delivery, but an action on it cannot be evidence that the shares were of no value, and there
maintained in the name of the assignee; the suit must
be in the name of the obligee. Bunting's Adminisfore the proper measure of damages was the sum paid
trators' v. Camd. and Atlant. R. R. Co. for the shares, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover the full amount. Kelly, C. B., dissenting. Judgment
LIFE INSURANCE. of the Common Pleas Division affirmed. Common
Insurable interest: parent and child.--The liability Pleas Division and Court of Appeal, June 2, 1877. Twy- / of a c
| of a child under the poor laws for the support of a cross v. Grant, 36 L. T. Rop. (N. S.) 812.
1 * To appear in 31 P. F. Smith's (81 Penn. St.) Reports.
parent, with the natural feelings of affection produc- appellate, not passing upon questions of fact, and ing a desire to provide for the comfort of the parent, comparatively seldom on those of practice, with its gives a right to the child to effect an insurance on the members free from nisi prius duties, the Court of life of the parent. A child has an insurable interest Appeals is able to dispose of a much larger number of in the life of a parent. The relationship prevents an cases involving law questions, than any other tribunal insurance on a parent's life from being a gambling ad of last resort. It has other advantages, namely, that venture. Reserve Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kane.
of being sufficiently numerous to give decisions con
curred in by all a great weight, that of holding its NAVIGABLE WATERS.
sessions in one place, where the very best facilities are Rights of owners of land adjoining as to landings :
afforded for investigation and consultation, that of obstructions. - The plaintiffs, a ferry compnay from
reviewing no decision in which any of its members Bristol to Burlington, across the Delaware river, had
have taken part, and finally the not unimportant ad"slips" into which they ran their boats on the side of
vantage of reviewing only decisions of appellate wharves in those towns belonging to the defendants, a
courts. These circumstances, with the additional one steamboat company, running on the river from Phila
that the tenure of the judicial office is such, that those delphia to the same towns. The defendants' boats
holding it are not liable to be affected by popular feelwhen moored at their wharves prevented the plain
ing, or by any other influence to which judges anxious tiffs' boats from going in and out. Held, that the de
about the permanency of their position are supposed fendants had the same right of navigation in front of
to be peculiarly susceptible, tend to render the cases the slips as in any part of the river, and to moor their
decided by it of extraordinary value to the profession boats in front of their wharf, but had no right will
everywhere. fully to obstruct the plaintiffs in the use of their slips.
The New York Reports, but a few months ago, were The question did not concern the right of navigation
sixty-two in number, and the only digest which emto the public in general, and to the parties in particu
braced merely the decisions contained therein, was lar, but an unlawful privation of the land used, where
one compiled by Mr. Tiffany, and which included the private rights of property existed. Del. Riv. Steam
first twenty-seven volumes. The necessity for a digest boat Co. v. Burl. and Bristol Steam Ferry Co.
of the remaining volumes has for several years been RECORDER OF DEEDS.
very apparent to the profession throughout the State, Liable for false certificate of search only to one em
who have, in order to reach the decisions of the Court ploying him : knowledge. The recorder of deeds is lia- | of Appeals, been driven to use digests embracing adble in damages for a false certificate of searches. The
judications of every court, or else to look through the liability of the recorder is to the party who asks and
volumes seriatim. Some resorted to one plan, and pays for the certificate, not to his assigns or alienee. some to another, the labor in each being about equal. Leslie, desiring a loan from plaintiffs, to be secured by We, therefore, welcomed the announcement some mortgage on his property, plaintiffs' conveyancer or- time since made, that Mr. Barbour was preparing a dered searches for liens; through Leslie he procured a digest of those volumes of the New York Reports not certificate from the recorder that there were no mort-/ covered by the work of Mr. Tiffany. The long experigages on the property; on this the loan was made to ence of Mr. Barbour as a reporter gave assurance him. There being prior mortgages given by Leslie not
that the task would be accurately done, and the digest certified, on the sale of Leslie's property by the sheriffa concise and reliable statement of all the points adthe proceeds did not reach to pay the loan. Held, that judicated during the period covered by his volumes. the recorder was liable to plaintiffs for the loss. The The completed work, in every respect, meets our exemploying Leslie to procure the certificate did not af- | pectations, and we are confident that the profession fect the plaintiffs with bis knowledge. A principal is
will agree with us in saying that the digest is precisely affected ly by such kuowledge of his agent as the what they were looking for. To those possessing the agent acquired in the business in which he is em
reports which it embraces, it will be indispensable, ployed. It is only during the agency that the agent
and to those who are not so fortunate, it will furnish represents and stands in the shoes of the principal;
in a small compass, and at a small cost, all that upon notice to him then is notice to the principal. The em
most occasions they really need from such reports. It ployment of Leslie ,to procure the certificate was not
should be found in every law office in the State, and negligence on the part of the conveyancer imputable
we do not doubt that it will, in the course of a month to the plaintiffs. Houseman v. Girard Mut. Build.
or two, be found in all, except those of individuals and Loun Assoc.
who never purchase any books, but depend upon the libraries of their neighbors for information on matters
of legal principle and practice. The volumes contain BOOK NOTICES.
a table of cases digested, and an exhaustive index, and BARBOUR'S DIGEST OF NEW YORK REPORTS.
are well printed and bound. Condensed Digest of the Decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Commission of Appeals of the State of New York, as
MINNESOTA REPORTS, VOL. XXII. reported in Tiffany's Reports, twelve volumes ; Hand's Reports, six volumes; Keyes' Reports, four volumes ; Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of MinSickles' Reports,'seventeen volumes. Volumes XXVIII nesota, May, 1875-May, 1876. George B. Young, Reporter. to LXII, inclusive, of the New York Reports. Vol. St. Louis : Soule, Thomas & Wentworth, 1877. u. By Oliver L. Barbour, LL. D., author of treatises on Criminal Law, etc. Albany: Weare C. Little & There is a number of valuable decisions of general Co., 1877.
interest in this volume, among which we will mention PERHAPS, with the single exception of the Massa- the following: Lee v. City of Minneapolis, p. 13: A
chusetts Reports the series of volumes known as municipal corporation is not liable a to real estate ownNew York Reports, is the most valuable collection of er for consequential damages resulting from a change of ase law published in this country. Being purely I street grade made by it. Newell v. Houlton, p. 19: It
is not competent for parties to a contract to stipulate sentation of the proper complaint, and proof by affifor a rate of interest after due, different from what davit of the additional facts required by the last secthe contract bears before due. State v. Kent, p. 41: A tion. The "additional facts" required to be proven pew rent collector whose compensation was to be five are all enumerated in the subdivision. Certainly per cent of all the rents collected, held not guilty of there is nothing requiring proof that the defendant is embezzlement in appropriating to his own use rents | without the State. collected, he having a joint interest in such rents. The question is as to the order that may be made. Bates v. Clifford, p. 52: An agreement to pay $500 for Section 440 describes the order. The order is that the a horse if one candidate for office was elected, and $150 summons be served by publication, or at the option of if another, held a wager, and neither phase of the con the plaintiff, by service of the summons, and of a copy tract enforceable. McCarthy v. Niskern, p. 90: Exem of the complaint and order, upon the defendant perplary damages are allowable against an imukeeper for sonally, without the State.” The plaintiff has at his turning a guest, who has paid for lodging, out of an option either one of the orders mentioned in the open. inn, but $900 held excessive. Cogan v. Cook, p. 137: | ing clause of section 438. An agreement for a good and sufficient deed, free from | Read the three sections “straight down" and it is all incumbrauces, held to call for a deed sufficient not impossible to find any requirement that proof be made only in form, but to pass title free from incumbrance. that the defendant is out of the State, nor that the Coleman v. Ballandi, p. 144: Exemption laws dis order be that he be served “without the State," if the criminating between different classes of creditors, held plaintiff prefers to serve by publication instead of perinvalid. State v. Owens, p. 238: A woman upon whom sonally out of the State. the crime of abortion is committed, is not regarded Under the construction placed upon this statute by as an accomplice. Anderson v. Morrison, p. 274: AU | the learned gentleman, who has “read the Code careemployee who sets a minor servant to do a dangerous fully," a man of moderate mental resources might, work is not liable for injuries done the minor while at perhaps, be embarrassed to know how to serve the such work, unless negligence was imputable to the summons, without the State, in the case provided for in employer in what he did. Shepard v. Allen, p. 283: An latter part of subdivision 2, where a defendant "keeps agreement to answer for the debt of another, if himself concealed therein." Anti-Fogy, however, founded on a new consideration, is not within the would feel no such embarrassment, for by his letter be statute, and is valid. Cotton v. M. & R. River Boom shows that he reads statutes by dropping whole phrases Co., p. 372: The power of eminent domain is not con- / when they stand in the way of any particular confined to taking for right of way. Pence v. Arbuckle, struction which he fancies may justify admiration of p. 417: A grantor executing and acknowledging a deed the New Code.
OLD Fogy. in blank, is estopped from setting up that the deed was TROY, N. Y., September 8, 1877. not complete at the time of execution. Lusk v.
[We have received several other communications of Belote, p. 468: A boarder at an inn held not to be a
like purport, but the foregoing presents all the points. traveler so as to make the innkeeper, as such, liable
-ED. A. L. J.) for the loss of such boarder's goods. The reporting in this volume is excellently done, and the book is well
“A HINT TO AUTHORS." printed and bound.
To the Editor of the Albany Law Journal:
SIR- Please allow me the space in your JOURNAL LO CORRESPONDENCE.
call the attention of our “legal authors" to the fact
that there are certain law books which have hereto“OLD FOGY AGAIN."
fore been of great value and utility to our profession,
which by reason of the many changes and modificaTo the Editor of the Albany Law Journal:
tions of the law have now become of much less Falue SIR – Your correspondent, “ Anti-Fogy," whose let
to the practitioner. I would suggest the necessity for ter is published in your issue of the 8th inst., seems to a rewritten and remodeled edition of Dayton on Surbe fully in accord with the theories upon which are | rogates, Crary or Special Proceedings, and Wait's Law defended the crudities of the New Code. He an
and Practice. There is great need for a revision of nounces that his letter is written for the utter con
these works at once. Our new Code of Civil Procedfusion of an Old Fogy, and he creates that confusion
ure will necessitate a work on the Practice, which it in a most astonishing way. He says: “Subdivision 4
is hoped some master mind and practical author will of section 438 (and indeed all the remaining subdivis
soon produce. In making many books there may be ions of the section is controlled by the opening clause | no end, but in needing many books there certainly is no of the section. That reads: “An order directing the end.
PROGRESS. service of a summons upon a defendant without the State may be made in either of the following cases.'
THE CRITICS OF THE NEW CODE. 'Subdivision 4. Where the defendant is a resident of To the Editor of the Albany Law Journal : the State,'” etc.
SIR- The new Code having, now in fact, become the Could not your correspondent make an argument in law of the land, it is time to require that its critics should defense of his position without such gross misrepre. be correct in their statement of facts and logical in their sentation? Of course the opening clause controls all / deductions. The criticisms so far have, to a great exthe subdivisions, but it does not read as quoted by tent, been simply a disgrace to the profession. Allow him. It reads: “An order directing the service of a me to refer to a few of them. summons upon a defendant, without the State, or by! (1.) In your issue of September 1, Mr. Roswell J. publication, may be made in either of the following | Moss, of Elmira, doubtless aspiring to outstrip the cases."
famous Hall's two-moon discovery, propounds the Section 139 permits the order to be made upon pre. I question, whether under article 3, section 17, of the constitution, the new Code, or parts thereof, are not namely: that the witness is not only an interested unconstitutional. Now bad Roswell read his consti- party, but also that the testimony of the witness cantution through, especially section 25 of the same arti- not be rebutted. But neither of these reasons exist cle, which provides that section 17 shall not apply to for excluding the testimony of a person convicted of any portion of the revisers' work, he would have saved crime simply, for his testimony can be rebutted and himself an unpardonable blunder.
he is not an interested party. The reasons for the two (2.) An essay some time ago was published by Messrs. laws, therefore, being entirely dissimilar, they cannot Banks & Co., which John Norton Pomeroy, LL. D., | be inconsistent. But the article also asserts that the dedicated to the bench and bar of the State. After provisions of section 830 are retrogressive. Clearly overruling the Court of Appeals and other inferior not, they but carry out the principles lying at the tribunals, by stating that the great reform created by foundation of section 829. The old Code was not only the old Code was the abolition of all distinction be- | inconsistent in not containing a provision similar to tween legal and equitable actions (which was not abol- section 830, but it was criminally so, if the expression ished thereby, and in the very nature of things cannot may be used, for it permitted a husband to use that be abolished), he asserted (p. 13) that sections 69 and power, which he has ever exercised over the wife, to 140 of the old Code had been entirely omitted in the compel or induce her to commit a crime, to enforce a new, when in fact both were contained in sections 3303 spurious claim for their mutual benefit, while it careand 518 of the revisers' second draft, and in sections fully guarded him from the commission of a similar 15 and 509 of the revisers' first draft, which was pub offense. A law that simply protects the stronger is lished and distributed to members of the bar more too absurd even for this unchivalric age. But not than three years before Mr. Pomeroy's essay appeared. only is section 830 consistent with the old law revived He further stated (p. 12), that in cases where the de- | in section 829, and not inconsistent with section 832, fendants were not severally liable, the plaintiff, under but section 832 is also in harmony with the recent the new Code, must succeed against all the defend- amendments to the constitution contained in article ants or be entirely defeated, when under sections 1932 | 15, sections 2 and 3. and 1947 of the revisers' second draft, and sections 446 | The prevalent idea that the new Code is a new sysand 451 of the revisers' first draft, judgment might | tem of practice has undoubtedly biased the minds be taken against one or more joint debtors served as of a large portion of the profession, and occasioned under section 136 of the old Code. See, also, sections much of the hasty and necessarily erroneous criticism 1204 and 1205.
upon it. It has even been stated that the new sup(3.) A prominent member of the State Bar Associa plants the old Code. Nothing could be more incortion, after reading section 454 of the new Code, asked, rect. Prior to the new Code, the laws pertaining to whoever heard of the phrase, “including the parties practice were contained in the third part of the Reto bills of exchange and promissory notes." On look- vised Statutes and many subsequent statutes, chief ing at section 120 of the old Code, it was found that | among which was the old Code. The twenty-two such a phrase had been in use, or rather existence, for chapters of the new Code simply bring together these about thirty years.
various statutes into a systematic arrangement, (4.) “Old Fogy," in his criticism upon section 438, thereby laying at rest, also, the often occurring quessubdivision 4, in your issue of August 18, omitted to tion, as to how much of the Revised Statutes was state that section 439, as presented by the revisers to superseded by the old Code. It is, therefore, erronethe legislature, provided, that upon an application for ous to state that the new supplants the old Code, or an order to serve summons by publication, in an ac any of the other statutes pertaining to practice, which tion for divorce, it must appear that the plaintiff has it revises. True, it alters the phraseology of many been, or will be, unable, with due diligence, to make statutes, and this may have been the cause of such personal service, and that the legislature deliberately erroneous impression; but such alterations were necstruck out this provision (see note to $ 439, Weed, Par essarily incident to the revision, as any one will at sons & Co.'s ed.). "Old Fogy” further complains once see by attempting the task himself, or by retherein that the defendant was not allowed, in such an ferring to the preface of the Revised Statutes of 1830, action, to come in and defend after final judgment wherein the revisers state that they have changed the by default. But such was the law under the old Code, language of almost every statute revised. section 134, and very properly too.
This change in the phraseology of many of the (5.) One of that peculiar class of individuals wbo statutes revised has also given rise to much unnecesdefineth the term "member of the liberal profession,” sary complaint, for not only was it necessarily incito signify one that divideth his fees with his client, dent to a revision, but it was also necessary in many upon reading sections 73-76, was immediately in favor cases in order to make the old Code say what it had of abolishing a commission that proposed such strange been decided by the courts to mean. The chief charand radical doctrines. But bad he been a more faith acteristic of the old Code, as well as, I think, its chief ful student of the law than of his client's wishes, or virtue, was its extreme indefiniteness. It was imposhad be but remembered that there is nothing new un- sible, at the outset, to definitely prescribe for all the der the sun, he would, doubtless, in a very short time cases that would arise in the revolution created by have discovered the same identical provisions in 2 R. the old Code. It was necessary that it should be S. 288, 68 71-74 (2 Edm. 298).
somewhat Delphic in character at first. But now the (6.) The article in your issue of August 25, charging bar seems to think that all its oracles have been interthe revisers with inconsistency in framing sections preted, and that the courts in hundreds of decisions 830 and 832, seems to me extremely illogical. Those have decided wbat it intended to say. Is it not, theretwo sections cannot be inconsistent, unless similar fore, now eminently proper as well as professional to Teasons exist for making the law the same in both require the text to say what it means, instead of becases. The reasons for the law contained in sectiouing required to lay the text aside and find its meanSu are the same as for that contained in section 829, ling in the decisions of the courts ?
The new Code bears the impress of faithful and la- and hired by him on the ordinary printed agreement borious toil, and stands in striking contrast to the that, until fully paid for, the hirer should be deemed mushroom growths of these latter days. It is entitled a bailee only. Only two months' hire had been paid, to and will command the respect of every student, for and there were nine months due. Judge Miller said its English and not Chinese conservatism, for its sys- he only required the concurrence of Judge Harrison tematic arrangement, for its precision, conciseness to put an effectual stop to this hiring system. Once and uniformity of style, for its almost unexampled for all, he might say, he was determined to put an end typography, and as it indicates that the bar are wak to the system. Judging from the advertisements in ing up to the fact that if it is ever to recover its proud the daily press now, it would seem that every article eminence in the past, it must modernize its weapons in future was to be obtained on hire. That practice and save all useless study.
had gone far enough with regard to pianos, but at Yours, respectfully,
R. J. present sewing machines, watches, and all kinds of ar.
ticles were advertised for procurement on this system.
If parties were not able to purchase articles they had NOTES.
better do without them. This system must be stopTHE September issue of the Journal of Jurispru ped, or the clause in the act of Parliament might be Idence and Scottish Law Magazine contains articles struck out altogether. After some discussion Judge on these topics: Gavelkind, a peculiar tenure of land
Miller said he would make no rule on the motion, in the county of Kent; Scottish Prisons, past and without prejudice to the applicatiou being renewed on present; A Procurator Fiscal, what he was, what he a future day. is, and what he will be; The Jurisdiction of the Local Courts in Ireland, Scotland and England compared ;
The following instances of whimsical wills appear in The position of Masters of Public Schools under the
the New Castle (England) Chronicle: “Some years Education (Scotland) Act, 1872. The editorial depart
ago an English gentleman bequeathed to his two ments of the present number do not compare favora
daughters their weight in £1 bank-notes. The eldest bly with those of former ones, and the cases reported
daughter got £51,200, and the younger £57,344. Here are of very little general interest.
is a singular bequest by a Frenchman; it may truly be styled 'A new way to pay old debts.' Vaugeas,
the famous French grammarian, was in the receipt We find it necessary to be extremely careful as to l of several pensions, but so prodigal was he iu his what we say about the new Code. Last week we re- liberalities, that he not only always remained poor, ferred to the fact that a correspondent had called our
that a correspondent had called our but was rarely out of debt, and finally acquired among attention to an omission, in the new Code, of a re- his intimates the sobriquet of Le Hibou from his comquirement that undertakings be several, and we have
pulsory assumption of the habits of that bird, and since received eighty-one letters of correction, point
only venturing into the streets at night. His will coning out that section 812 provides that undertakings
tains much that is original, but the following is an esshall be “joint and several in form.” The profession pecially characteristic clause. After disposing of all are obviously conning the Code to some purpose.
the little he possessed to meet the claims of his credi
tors, he adds: 'Still, as it may be found that even In “ Coke upon Littleton" there is recorded a case
after the sale of my library and effects, these funds of a man being his own executor. An ecclesiastic,
will not suffice to pay my debts, the only means I can civilly dead upon entering holy orders, left prop
think of to meet them is that my body should be sold
to the surgeons on the best terins that can be obtained, erty to an abby, but becoming subsequently an abbot, he was civilly resuscitated, and the execution of the
and the product applied, as far as it will go, toward trusts of his own will devolved upon him. A some
the liquidation of any sums it may be found I still what analogous anomaly has just occurred in France.
owe; I have been of very little service to society while
I lived, I shall be glad if I can thus become of any use M. Savary, an ex-deputy, being a republican, was dismissed from the mayoralty of his commune. The
after I am dead.' Whether the creditors accepted this deputy mayor, a republican also, refused to replace
well-intentioned bequest in part satisfaction of their him. The prefect had then no other resource but to
claims is not recorded. I should have been pleased to call upon the senior member of the municipal council
have found that it was declined with thanks,' so that to perform the functions of mayor. This senior mem
the poor savant's body might have gone in peace, inber is no other than M. Savary, and he now signs all
stead of pieces, to its last resting-place. The following official acts as his own substitute in this form : “For
is an extract from the will of John Hylett Stow, proved Savary, the dismissed mayor, the senior member of
in 1781: “I hereby direct my executors to lay out five the municipal council, Savary.” There is no help for
guineas in the purchase of a picture of the viper biting this.-London Daily News.
the benevolent hand of the person who saved him from perishing in the snow, if the same can be bought
for the money; and that they do, in memory of me, Sewing machine contracts are coming into the Eng- present it to — - Esq., a King's counsel, whereby lish courts for adjudication, and they meet with no he may have frequent opportunities of contemplating more favor there than here. Says a late issue of the on it, and by a comparison between that and his own Manchester (England) Guardian: In the Irish Bank virtue, be able to form a certain judgment which is ruptcy Court, on the 17th ult., before Judge Miller, an | best and most profitable, a grateful remembrance of application was made in Re Thomas Blackwell. The past friendship and almost parental regard, or ingratibankrupt had carried on business as a draper in Northtude and insolence. This I direct to be presented to Earl street, Dublin. Mr. Collins applied on behalf of him in lieu of a legacy of three thousands pounds I the Singer Machine Company for an order to give up had by a former will, now revoked and burnt, left a sewing machine found on the bankrupt's premises, I him."