Democratic Sentinel, Volume 3, Number 25, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 1 August 1879 — RECENT LEGAL DECISIONS. [ARTICLE]

RECENT LEGAL DECISIONS.

. Interlineation of Document. —The interlineation of a lease, to make it uniform to what was the understanding and agreement of the parties at tho time it was executed, is not such a fraudulent alteration as to make it a forgery.— Frmli vs. The Commonwealth, Sup. CL,Pa. Correction of Contract. —When an oral contract is afterward reduced to writing and the instrument fails to express in apt and proper terms the real intention of tho parties through a mistake of tho writer, equity will permit the mistake to be corrected. — Nowlin vs. Payne, CL, lowa. Indorser’s will not be received for the purpose of showing that a payee of a promissory note, who has transferred it by an indorsement in blank, verbally agreed, at the time of making the indorsement, to assume an absolute and unconditional liability, and not the liability simply of an indorser.; — Rodney vs. Wilson, Sup. Ct., Mo. Usury.—When an agent procuring a loan of money for a party charged and received from tho borrower 5 per cent, of the amount, and SIOO for going to Chicago and procuring a release of au incumbrance, the party making the loan having no knowledge of this arrangement and deriving no benefit from it, it was held that usury could not be predicated of the transaction.— Ballinger vs. Rowland, Slip. CL, 111. Guaranty. —Action was brought on a guaranty of the assignment of a mortgage. The guaranty was that the mortgaged premises were sufficient to pay the debt and also for the collection of the mortgage. Held that there must have been a diligent foreclosure as a condition precedent to recovery. The first payment was due and unpaid nearly four years prior to the foreclosure. This delay was such negligence as discharged the guarantor.— Northern Insurance Company of New York vs. N. Y. Ct. o f Appeals.

Rights of Railroad Passengers.— The purchase of a ticket constitutes a contract between the company and passenger, in accordance with which the former undertakes to carry the latter to his destination on the particular train he takes and no other, unless he is permitted by some regulation of the company, upon compliance with some condition, to stop over at an intervening station and resume his journey by another train. —Stone vs. C. & N. W. R. R. Co., Sup. Ct., lowa. Possession and Ownership.— A person in actual possession of real estate under an unrecorded deed is, as against all persons who have actual notice of such deed, the legal and absolute owner of such real estate. As against all other persons, he is the equitable owner, and all persons are bound to take notice of all equitable interests which any person may have in real estate of which he is in actual possession.— Tucker vs. Vandermark & Kirtland, Sup. CL, Kan. Municipal Bonds. — Every purchaser of a municipal bond is chargeable with notice of the statute under which the bond was issued. If the statute gives no power to make the bond, the municipality is not bound. If it gives no power to raise money by taxation to pay the bond, the holder cannot require the municipal authorities to levy a tax for that purpose. A court has no power to compel tho levy of a tax which the law does not authorize, and if the statute provides that the tax shall not exceed a certain sum annually, there is no power to compel*tho levy of a larger sum United Slates ex re vs. Macon County (Missouri), Sup. CL U. S. Injuries from Animals. —A decision by Judge Clifford, of the Supreme Court, sustaining a verdict against the owners of a pet deer which injured a lady, gives an exposition of the law which is of general interest. The rule of law, as stated, is “that people may keep animals, but if the animal is of a wild and savage species, the owner is, as a general rule, liable for any mischief which it may do others. If the Croat ure is of a tame kind, such as a horse or dog, its owner may let it runatlarge, and is not liable to a single hurtful act, unless he had knowledge that such mischief might bo expected from it. But, in respect to wild animals, though they may be lawfully kept, as curiosities, for instance, the proprietor is bound to know their savage character, and must keep them caged or chained. Jf he allows them to run loose where the public havo a right to go, and they do injury to persons who are without fault themselves, who have not given them any provocation, he must pay damages.”