Democratic Sentinel, Volume 7, Number 51, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 18 January 1884 — SOME LAW DECISIONS. [ARTICLE]

SOME LAW DECISIONS.

Debt in Mortgage. —ls a mortgage is given to secure an ascertained debt, the amonnt of that debt shonld be stated, and if it is intended to secure a debt not ascertained, such data shonld be given respecting it as will pnt any one interested in the inquiry upon the track leading to its discovery. If it is given to secure an existing or a future liability, the foundation of such liability should be set out.—Bullock vs. Battenhausen, Supreme court of Hlinois. Hoys stead. —A husband and wife lonvoyed an undivided one-half of the homestead premises to a third person, who, at the same time and as a part of the same transaction, conveyed the interest to the hnsband. that there was a-period of time, however short, during which the title to the undivided one-half was vested in the third party, and the homestead right was destroyed. —Carroll vs. Ellis, Supreme court of California. Mechanic’s Lien. —When the owner of a building has paid a sub-contractor, lling a mechanic’s lien, a sum of money tn account of his work without directng its application, the sum will be applied to those items for which the property of the owner might have been rendered liable by a lien.—Nelson vs. Partridge’s administrator, St. Louis Court of Appeals. Mortgage of Stock. —A mortgage upon shares of stock in a corporation is not within a statute authorizing mortgag( s upon real and personal property td be recorded, and the recording of such an instrument is not constructive notice to a suseqnent purchaser.— Spalding vs. Painl’s administrator, Kentucky Court of Appeals. Insurance. —A policy provided that it should become void in case of failure to make prompt payment of premium, but upon a surrender within thirty days thereafter a proportional paid-up policy would be issued. The agent at the time of issuing the policy represented that it was non-forfeitable, and the insured, in reliance on his representations, failed to apply for a paid-up policy within the specified time. Held, that tho insured had no legal right to rely on what was said by the agent at the time he took the policy. If the loose expressons used by tho agent at the time imported more than was contained in the policy, all negotiations between the parties, and all that was said at the time, are conclusively deemed by the law to have been merged in the written contract. That expresses the exact contraot made between the parties at the time and the whole of it.—The Attorney General vs. Continental Life. Insurance Company, New York Court of Appeals.