Music Trade Review

Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
THE MUSIC TRADE REVIEW.
12
DECISIONS,
INSOLVENCY—DISCHARGE—NONRESIDENT
CREDITORS.
A discharge of a debtor under a State insolv-
ent law does not extinguish a debt to a non-
resident creditor, who did not participate in the
insolvency proceedings.
Downes et al. v. Fisher et al., Court of Ap-
peals of Maryland, June 20, 1893.
4 POINTS OP SUPERIORITY
OF THE
Celebrated
"Conover"
Pianos.
destroys the negotiability of the note as an inland
bill of exchange, and that one signing his name
on the back before its delivery thereof is not an
indorser under the law merchant, but a surety-
maker or promisor, and is not released from
liability by a single extension of time to the
other makers, but that as the term " any ex-
tension " is used in the singular sense, other
and subsequent extensions given without the
knowledge or consent of the surety, discharge
the latter.
ATTACHMENT OF MORGAGED CHATTELS—PRI-
ORITY OF LIENS—WAIVER.
The owner of a building gave a personal pro-
perty
mortgage to the plaintiff, and afterwards
The Supreme Court of Minnesota held, in the
AND SWEETNESS of TONE. a second mortgage to another party. Thereafter
case of West vs. St. Paul National Bank, that a
a creditor of the owner attached the building.
bank receiving an indorsed note before maturity ^"SCIENTIFIC CONSTRUCTION.
The officer gave notice to the plaintiff, and re-
(THE ONLY STRICTLY
for collection was required to take the proper ^"DURABILITY.
quested the amount due under the first mort-
HIGH
GRADE
PIANO
steps to fix the liability of the indorser.
gage. This was not complied with, and the
MANUFACTURED
tST'BEAUTY.
CHATTEL MORTGAGE—PAYMENT—REISSUE—
plaintiff, while the attachment was pending,
IN CHICAGO.)
VALIDITY.
foreclosed his mortgage by publication. At the
sheriff's sale the defendant became the purchaser.
Where plaintiff borrows money of defendant
Afterwards the plaintiff purchased and procured
on a note secured by chattel mortgage, and, on
an
assignment of the second mortgage, and pro-
maturity of the note, pays the same, and re-
ceeded to foreclose that, which foreclosure be-
SOLE FACTORS.
ceives back the note and mortgage, which are
came complete before the commencement of this
not canceled, and thereafter borrows a second,
(The Largest Dealers in Pianos and Organs in the World,) action. Held, that the waiver of the plaintiff
but smaller, sum of money, and redelivers to the
to comply with the statute in giving the officer
lender the old note and mortgage, the latter is
the amount due under the first mortgage post-
not available as security for the debt.
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL WAREROOMS,
poned that mortgage, so far as the rights of
Douglas v. Stetson, Supreme Judicial Court
attaching creditors were concerned, to the sec-
of Massachusetts, Suffolk, June 26, 1893.
(SECOND FLOOR.)
215 WABASH AVE e , ond, and the second mortgage became the first
ACTION ON NOTE—BURDEN OP PROOF—GENERAL
on the property ; that the second mortgage still
CHICAGO.
DENIAL.
subsisted, and was not extinguished by the prior
foreclosure, and all rights the attaching creditor
The plaintiff sought to recover upon a prom-
acquired in the property were subject to both
missory note, which was set out at length in
mortgages. See Phillips v. Fields, 22 Atl. Rep.
the petition, and appeared to bear a specified
243, 83 Me. 348.
rate of interest. The defendant's answer was a
Phillips v. Emery, Supreme Judicial Court of
general denial, duly verified ; and they claimed
Maine, December 29, 1892.
at the trial that the note had been altered, and
CREDITORS' BILL—FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE—
that the provisions therein for interest had been
PARTIES—EVIDENCE—DEPOSITIONS.
added to the note, without consent, since its
1. A direct interrogatory, added, without
execution. Held, under the issues formed, that
notice to the other party, after the interrogat-
the burden was upon the plaintiff to prove the
ories were crossed, should be disregarded and
execution of the note as alleged in the petition,
excluding the answer to the same was not error.
and that under the verified general denial the
2. Notes are not evidence of the maker's in-
defendants were properly permitted to offer
solvency or indebtedness at any time previous
to their dates, it not appearing when the con-
proof of the alteration.
sideration for them was received.
J. I. Case Threshing-Machine Co. v. Peterson,
3. If the owner of a stock of merchandise, with
et al., Supreme Court of Kansas, July 8, 1893.
a view to defeat his existing creditors, and to
secure for the enjoyment of his wife, or of her
MORTGAGES—FRAUD—EVIDENCE—QUESTION OF
and himself, the said stock, and the benefits ot
LAW—PERISHABLE PROPERTY.
a continuous business to be conducted by the
use thereof, enter into a combination with the
1. Where the facts relied upon to render a
wife and a third person, under which there are
mortgage fraudulent as to creditors appear upon
to be a sham sale or simulated sale to such third
the face thereof or are undisputed, the question
person, a note and mortgage executed by him
of fraud is one of law for the court. In all other
to the husband, and a transfer to the wife, the
cases it is a question of fact for the consideration
business to go on in the name of the third per-
son, who is to receive either a salary or an in-
of the jury.
terest, etc., debts created by such third person
2. A mortgage will not be declared fraudulent
in conducting the business may, by reason of
as to creditors on the sole ground that among a
the fraudulent combination, be chargeable to any
two, or all three, as partners, or, if not as part-
large number of separate chattels included
ners, as joint wrongdoers, if the fraudulent
therein is a small amount of perishable property,
scheme, either originally or subsequently, em-
which it is impossible to preserve until the
braced a purpose to benefit the conspirators,
maturity of the mortgage debt, although such
The Company Scrupulously protect their whether jointly or severally, by defrauding per-
fact may be considered as evidence of fraud. The
sons who might become creditors of the osten-
agencies,
sible owner of the business ; that is, the third
question of good faith in such case is one of
and
person in whose name it is carried on. If the
fact, and not of law.
Never change when it can be avoided.
wife alone had the real ownership of the busi-
Houck, Constable v. Heinzman, Supreme Hence the agency becomes more valuable ness, and the ostensible owner was merely an
Court of Nebraska, June 89, 3031.
agent, the legal doctrine of concealed principal
every year.
would apply, so as to entitle the creditor to a
NOTE—STIPULATION—DEFENSES.
If y«u can, you should secure it at once* judgment against the real owner, as such. The
by writing to
plaintiffs' pleading being based on the uniform
The Appelate Court of Indiana held, in the
procedure act of 1887, all aspects, legal and
case of Oyler et al., vs. McMurray, that a stipu-
equitable which the facts present, are involved.
lation in a note waiving '' all defenses on the
4. On the evidence in the record, the court
ground of any extension of the time of its pay-
erred in granting a nonsuit.
ment that may be given by the holder to them
Stubbs et al. v. Fleming et al., Supreme Court
or either of them '' is binding on the parties, but
NORWALK, OHIO.
of Georgia, March 27, 1893.
BANK—NOTE—INDORSEMENT.
CHICAGO COTTAGE ORGAN COMPANY,
Enterprising dealers all over the Country are
fast securing the agency for the wonderful
A.
B.
CHASE
PIANOS.
Wonderful in Tone Quality.
Wonderful in Selling Qualities,
Style, Finish, Strength,
Action, Durability and Popularity,
and
Improvement of Tone by Age and Use.
THE A. B. CHASE GO.,
Used Exclusively in Seidl,
Thomas and Gilmore Concerts
at Madison Square Garden,
New York.
130 Fifth Avenue, corner x8tli Street, New York.
BOSTON,
NEW YORK,
CHICAGO.