Abraham Clark Freeman John Proffatt.

The American decisions: cases of general value and authority ..., Volume 3 online

. (page 106 of 118)
Online LibraryAbraham Clark Freeman John ProffattThe American decisions: cases of general value and authority ..., Volume 3 → online text (page 106 of 118)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


solvent laws on foreign creditors.

Cited in notes, in 94 A. S. R. 556, on foreign proceedings in bankruptcy and in



Digitized by VjOOQIC



373 NOTES ON AMERICAN DECISIONS. [410-415

insolvency; 23 A. S. R. 112, on effect of discharge in insolvency as against non-
residents.

Distinguished in Towne v. Smith, 1 Woodb. & M. 115, Fed. Cas. No. 14,115;
Blanchard v. Russell, 13 Mass. 1, 7 A. D. 106, — holding that a discharge under
bankrupt law of any state is a good bar to an action brought in another state
of which the creditor is a citizen, the -contract sued on having been made within
the state which enacted the law, and the debtor being there a subject and citizen
at time of making of it.

Disapproved in Adams v. Storey, 1 Paine, 79, Fed. Cas. No. 66, holding that
discharge in insolvency proceedings in another state bars recovery on the debt.
Promise to pay debt barred by discharge in insolvency or bankruptcy.

Cited in reference notes in 43 A. D. 176, on effect of promise to pay debt after
discharge in bankruptcy; 44 A. D. 353, on enforceability of new promise to pay
debt discharged by bankruptcy.

3 AM. DEC. 415, JACKSON v. CATMN, 2 JOHNS. 248.
Statute of frauds as applied to judicial sales.

Cited in Ennis v. Waller, 3 Blackf. 472; Hunt v. Gregg, 8 Blackf. 105; Chap-
man v. Harwood, 8 Blackf. 82, 44 A. D. 736; Evans v. Ashley, 8 Mo. 177; Clarke
v. Miller, 18 Barb. 269, — holding sale of land by sheriff within statute of frauds
and deed necessary to pass title; Nichol v. Ridley, 5 Yerg. 63, 26 A. D. 254,
holding contra; Willets v. Van Alst, 26 How. Pr. 325, holding that sale by referee
executing judgment of court in action of foreclosure is within statute of frauds.

Cited in note in 43 A. D. 531, on applicability of statute of frauds to sheriff's
sales.

Distinguished in Pomeroy v. Winship, 12 Mass. 513, 7 A. D. 91, holding that
no objection under statute of frauds will lie after delivery of deed.
— Return or certificate as memorandum.

Cited in Sanborn v. Chamberlin, 101 Mass. 409, holding that return is sufficient
memorandum to take case out of statute of frauds; Gorham v. Wing, 10 Mich.
486, as to certificate at sheriff's sale as designed to satisfy statute of frauds.
Requisites of escrow.

Cited in Miller v. Fletcher, 27 Gratt. 403, 21 A. R. 356; Lawton v. Sager, 11
Barb. 349; Jordan v. Pollock, 14 Ga. 145; Firemen's Ins. Co. v. McMillan, 29 Ala.
147, — holding that deed in escrow must be delivered to third party and not to
grantee; Wellborn v. Weaver, 17 Ga. 267, 63 A. D. 235, holding that delivery is
no less essential to an escrow than a deed.
Writing delivered to intermediary as present deed or as escrow.

Cited in Graves v. Tucker, 10 Smedes & M. 9, holding that to make a deed an
escrow the delivery must be conditional; Stone v. Duvall, 77 111. 475, holding that
delivery of deed to third party, to be retained until death of grantor, and then de-
livered to grantee, constitutes a delivery in escrow and will pass title at grantor's
death to grantee or his heirs; Andrews v. Farnham, 29 Minn. 246, 13 N. W. 161,
holding that deed of quitclaim left with stranger to be delivered when inchoate
title of grantor should mature at expiration of time for redemption, is to be con-
sidered an escrow; Adler v. German i a F. Ins. Co. 17 Misc. 347, 39 N. Y. Supp.
1070, holding that a chattel mortgage given to secure a loan, although it is agreed
that indorsed notes may be substituted for it at a specified time in future, can-
not be deemed to have been delivered in escrow; Gaston v. Portland, 16 Or. 255, 19
Pac. 127, holding it not necessary that the condition upon which a deed is de-
livered in escrow be expressed in writing; Parker v. Dustin, 22 N. H. 424; White



Digitized by VjOOQIC



3 AM. DEC] NOTES ON AMERICAN DECISIONS. 374

v. Bailey, 14 Conn. 271, — holding that whether a deed was delivered as an escrow,
is generally a question of fact; Cagger v. Lansing, 43 N. Y. 550, holding certain
deed merely delivered in escrow ; Huntington v. Smith, 4 Conn. 235, holding certain
notes to have been delivered in escrow; Skinner v. Baker, 79 111. 496, holding
deed to have been delivered in escrow; Fitch v. Bunch, 30 Cal. 208, holding that
deed deposited with third person by grantor, to be delivered to grantee upon order
of grantor, is not an escrow; Young v. Clarendon Twp. 26 Fed. 805, holding
certain bonds to have been delivered in escrow; Brown v. Austen, 35 Barb. 341, 22
How. Pr. 394, as to delivery of deed in escrow.
When title passes or writing In escrow takes effect.

Cited in Taylor v. Craig, 2 J. J. Marsh. 449, holding that deed delivered, as a
deed to a stranger, to be delivered to the party on condition, is binding though
the condition be not performed, otherwise if delivered as an escrow; Parrott v.
Parrott, 1 Heisk. 681 ; Taft v. Taft, 59 Mich. 185, 60 A. R. 291, 26 N. W. 426,—
holding that until the delivery by the depository in escrow, in conformity with the
conditions of the holding no title passes to grantee; Van Tassel v. Burger, 119
App. Div. 509, 104 N. Y. Supp. 273; Peter v. Wright, 6 Ind. 183; Wolcott v. Jones,
7 Colo. App. 360, 44 Pac. 675, — holding deed placed in escrow ineffective for any
purpose until condition is performed; Lyttle v. Cozad, 21 W. Va. 183, holding that
if bond, perfect on its face, is delivered to obligee as an escrow, it is valid though
the condition is not complied with.

Distinguished in Deardorff v. Foresman, 24 Ind. 481, holding that surety bound
where principal delivers instrument perfect in its face, in violation of condition
that it shall not be delivered to obligee who has no knowledge of the condition.
Rights of parties to an escrow.

Cited in Craddock v. Barnes, 142 N. C. 89, 54 S. E. 1003, holding that grantor
in an escrow cannot add any condition not existing when deed was placed in
escrow and thereby defeat grantee's title.
What constitutes valid delivery of deed.

Cited in Cook v. Brown, 34 *N. H. 400, holding that to make delivery of deed
effectual grantor must part with all control over it; Dietz v. Farish, 12 Jones & S.
190, holding delivery not a valid one within the rule; Jacobs v. Alexander, 19
Barb. 243, holding deed inoperative for want of delivery; Brooks v. Bobo, 4
Strobh. L. 38, holding that where parties to a sealed obligation, executed it and
left it in the hands of the principal obligor, to be delivered to obligee upon con-
dition that he would discount it, there was no delivery to the obligee.

Cited in reference notes in 37 A. D. 680, on delivery of deed as escrow; 25
A. S. R. 178, on what constitutes delivery of deed in escrow.

Cited in notes in 8 E. R. C. 619, on delivery of deed in escrow; 16 A. D. 40, on
sufficiency of delivery of deed to third person.
Grantor's consent as essential to delivery.

Cited in Everts v. Agnes, 4 Wis. 356, 65 A. D. 314, holding that fraudulent pro-
curement of deed deposited as an escrow from the depository by the grantee will
not pass title to grantee; Newton v. Newton, 52 App. Div. 96, 64 N. C. 981, hold-
ing that when grantee obtains possession of deed from married woman by false
representations, its subsequent delivery by husband to grantee will not discharge
her dower.
Effect of attainder on outstanding rights.

Cited in Lee v. Porter, 5 Johns. Ch. 268, holding that recital in act of legis*
lature, that the title to land was vested in the state by attainder of a certain
person, is not sufficient to devest title of person holding adversely without a



Digitized by VjOOQIC



375 NOTES ON AMERICAN DECISIONS. [415-422

regular eviction in ordinary course of law; Carver v. Jackson, 4 Pet. 1, 7 L. ed.
761, holding that power under marriage settlement to dispose of land does not
pass to state upon the attainder of the parties holding such power.

Cited in notes in 1 L.R.A. 264, on civil death; 18 L.R.A. 82, 83, on civil death in
United States.
Civiliter mortuus.

Cited in Baltimore v. Chester, 53 Vt. 315, 38 A. R. 677, as to the application of
the term at common law.
Vesting of title by judicial sale.

Cited in Farmers' Bank v. Merchant, 13 How. Pr. 10, holding that a seizure and
sale of land under an execution does not devest estate of debtor, unless purchase
money is paid and deed delivered.
Effect of void sheriff's sale on title.

Cited in Van Alstine v. Wimple, 5 Cow. 162, as to estate left in debtor after
sheriff's sale which did not pass title.
Effect of levy on land.

Cited in Reynolds v. Rogers, 5 Ohio, 169, holding that subsisting levy of
execution on land is not a satisfaction of the judgment.
What constitutes a valid contract at Judicial sale.

Cited in Swortzell v. Martin, 16 Iowa, 519, holding that if bid is made and
-accepted at judicial sale this constitutes a valid and binding contract.

Cited in note in 102 A. S. R. 242, on judicial sales within statute of frauds.
Assignability of contingent rights and possibilities.

Cited in Simpson v. Greeley, 8 Kan. 586; Johnston v. Spicer, 41 Hun, 475, 5 N.
Y. S. R. 40, — holding that a mere possibility is not subject of a grant unless it is
•coupled with an interest.
Abeyance of titles.

Cited in Billings v. Baker, 28 Barb. 343, holding title to estates never in abey-
ance but always in somebody.
Construction of grants by public.

Cited in Morey v. Orford Bridge, Smith (N. H.) 91, holding that a grant of a
ferry does not prevent the erection of a bridge ; Jackson ex dem. Cooper v. Cory, •
8 Johns. 385, holding conveyance of courthouse plat void because made by
supervisors when title was in che "people" of the county.
When legislation is deemed exercise of judicial power.

Cited in Merrill v. Sherburne, 1 N. H. 199, 8 A. D. 52, holding that when legis-
lature has adjudicated on a case which had already happened, and had been liti-
gated between individuals, their proceedings must be deemed an exercise of judicial
powers.

-Constructive notice of statutes.

Cited in Neeson v. Bray, 46 N. Y. S. R. 914, 19 N. Y. Supp. 841, imputing con-
structive notice of all public acts.

Cited in reference note in 20 A. D. 381, on recitals in private statute as evidence.

3 AM. DEC. 422, LANSING v. GAINE, 2 JOHNS. 300.
Delivery as giving effect to bill or note.

Cited in Woodford v. Dorwin, 3 Vt. 82, 21 A. D. 573; Cowing v. Altman, 71 N.
Y. 435, 27 A. R. 70, — holding that check or note is considered as made on day
of delivery.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



3 AM. DEC] NOTES ON AMERICAN DECISIONS. 376

Cited in reference notes in 83 A. D. 248, on time notes take effect; 46 A. D. 292 r
on delivery essential to pass title to note.

Cited in note in 6 L.R.A. 470, on necessity for delivery to validity of note.

— Immateriality of date.

Cited in Inglish v. Breneman, 5 Ark. 377, 41 A. D. 96, holding that date is not
necessary to validity of note.
Notice of dissolution of partnership.

Cited in Simonds v. Strong, 24 Vt. 642; Lucas v. Bank of Darien, 2 Stew.
(Ala.) 280; Graves v. Merry, 6 Cow. 701, 16 A. D. 471,— holding that notice in
newspaper sufficient to all persons who had no previous dealings with firm;
Ketcham v. Clark, 6 Johns. 144, 5 A. D. 197, holding partnership liable, after it had
expired by limitation on the ground that there was no evidence of any notice of
dissolution; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Weston, 162 N. Y. 113, 56 N. E. 494, to point
that general notice of dissolution of partnership must, to be effectual, be season-
ably in one or more newspapers in immediate vicinity; Wood v. Erie R. Co. 9
Hun, 648, holding that to effectually dissolve a partnership as to persons not
dealing with it, but who may, from the publicity of its firm name, have known
of its existence, a public notice or some equivalent action is requisite; Prentiss v.
Sinclair, 5 Vt. 149, 26 A. D. 288; Watkinson v. Bank of Pennsylvania, 4 Whart.
482, 34 A. D. 521, — holding that as to persons who have had previous dealings
with a partnership an actual notice to them of the dissolution must be shown;
Mauldin v. Branch Bank, 2 Ala. 502, holding that notice of dissolution of partner-
ship published in one of the usual advertising gazettes of the place where the
business was carried is conclusive evidence of notice; Southwick v. McGovern, 28
Iowa, 533; Backus v. Taylor, 84 Ind. 503, — holding that public notice of disso-
lution necessary; Shurlds v. Tilson, 2 McLean, 458, Fed. Cas. No. 12,827, as to
modes of giving notice of dissolution of partnership ; Shaffer v. Snyder, 7 Serg. &
R. 503, holding that evidence of witness that he had notice of the dissolution of a
partnership at a particular time cannot be given in evidence, in a suit between
others, in which the dissolution of the partnership is a material question.

Cited in notes in 16 A. D. 475; 26 A. D. 290, — on notice of dissolution of part-
nership; 23 L. ed. U. S. 852, on what notice of dissolution of firm is sufficient to
avoid liability; 62 A. D. 321, on inference of notice arising from newspaper
articles or publication not required or authorized by law.
Implied authority of partner to bind Arm.

Cited in Exchange Bank v. Monteath, 26 N. Y. 505, holding partnership liable to
bona fide purchaser for notes of firm fraudulently issued by one partner; Stall v*
Catskill Bank, 18 Wend. 466, as to liability of partnership to bona fide holder
of commercial paper issued by one member of firm in a matter not relating to
business of firm, and without knowledge of other partners.

Cited in reference notes in 37 A. D. 186; 43 A. D. 685, — on partner's power to
bind firm by negotiable instrument.

Cited in note in 13 A. D. 117, on burden of proof as to partners power to bind
firm as accommodation sureties or indorsers.

— Limited partnerships.

Cited in Gray v. Ward, 18 111. 32, holding that where partnership is limited to
a single enterprise the law will not imply authority of one partner to use name of
firm out of its usual business, so as to bind firm; Hess v. Werts, 4 Serg. & R.
356, as to liability of limited partnerships for acts of one partner.

Cited in reference note in 38 A. D. 189, on power of partner in limited partner-
ship.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



377 NOTES ON AMERICAN DECISIONS. [422

— After dissolution.

Cited in Morrison v. Perry, 11 Hun, 33, holding that after dissolution of partner-
ship neither of the partners can give notes nor accept bills so as to bind other
partners; Sutton v. Dillaye, 3 Barb. 529, holding that after dissolution of partner-
ship one of the partners cannot bind the others by an agreement to collect moneys
in the partnership name for a third person having knowledge of dissolution;
White v. Union Ins. Co. 1 Nott & M'C. 556, 9 A. D. 726 ; Waters v. Harris, 28
Jones & S. 192, 28 Abb. N. C. 89, 17 N. Y. Supp. 370,— holding that upon dissolu-
tion of firm the agency of each partner is revoked except to the extent of closing
up past transactions; Gale v. Miller, 1 Lans. 451, holding that partner could not
bind firm by check issued in firm name after dissolution; Veale v. Hassan, 3
M'Cord, L. 278, holding that after dissolution, one partner cannot bind other by a
new contract, but the promise of one partner will prevent the operation of the
statute of limitations; Rice v. Goodenow, Tappan (Ohio) 126, holding an in-
dorsement in a partnership name, after dissolution, by one of the partners but
under special authority from the others, is valid.

Cited in reference notes in 13 A. D. 505; 16 A. D. 475; 36 A. D. 311; 37 A. D.
612, — on power of partner to bind firm after dissolution; 25 A. D. 363, on admis-
sions by partner after dissolution.

Distinguished in White v. Toles, 7 Ala. 569, holding payment to one partner dis-
charged debt due firm.

Disapproved in Mann v. Locke, ll N. H. 246, holding that admissions of a
partner, made after a dissolution of the partnership, is competent evidence against
the firm as to any contract made prior to such dissolution.

— Charging firm for individual debt.

Cited in Wilson v. Williams, 14 Wend. 146, 28 A. D. 518; Doty v. Bates, 11
Johns. 544; Joyce v. Williams, 14 Wend. 141; Chazournes v. Edwards, 3 Pick. 5;
Dob v. Halsey, 16 Johns. 34, 8 A. D. 293; Pierce v. Pass, 1 Port. (Ala.) 232;
Mauldin v. Branch Bank, 2 Ala. 502; Post v. Kimberly, 9 Johns. 470; Van Voorhis
v. Brown, 29 App. Div. 119, 51 N. Y. Supp. 440; Lanier v. McCabe, 2 Fla. 32, 48
A. D. 173; Livingston v. Roosevelt, 4 Johns. 251, 4 A. D. 273, — holding that one
partner cannot pledge the partnership security for a private debt, without con-
sent or privity of other partners; Evernghim v. Ensworth, 7 Wend. 326, holding
that debt due firm cannot be discharged by applying it in payment of an individual
debt unless with knowledge and consent of other partners; Laverty v. Burr, 1
Wend. 529, holding that promissory note indorsed by one member of partnership in
firm name as security for the debt of a third person, with knowledge of creditor, is
not binding upon other partner unless he was previously consulted or subsequently
assented to transaction; Knapp v. McBride, 7 Ala. 19, holding that if partnership
note be given for individual debt of partner making it, with knowledge of the party
to whom it was given, these facts must be shown in defense; Firemen Ins. Co. v.
Bennett, 5 Conn. 574, 13 A. D. 109, holding that indorser who was ignorant
through gross negligence of the fact that a note was executed by one partner in
partnership name for his individual purposes cannot hold firm liable on note;
Cook v. Bloodgood, 7 Ala. 683, holding that a law partner who exceeds his author-
ity by taking his individual notes in discharge is liable to other partner for any
injury he may sustain by becoming liable to the client on account of the satisfac-
tion made in the firm name.
Liability for unauthorized acts of agent.

Distinguished in Farmers' & M. Bank v. Butchers' & D. Bank, 16 N. Y. 125, 69
A. D. 678 (affirming 14 N. Y. 623), holding bank liable to bona fide holder of
certified check issued bv cashier without authoritv.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



3 AM. DEC] NOTES ON AMERICAN DECISIONS. 378

Defenses available against holder of note.

Cited in Gibson v. Conner, 3 Ga. 47, holding note in hands of bona fide holder as
collateral security for an existing debt is not liable to the equities between maker
and payee; Rumsey v. Leek, 5 Wend. 20, holding that note void for want of con-
sideration cannot be recovered by assignee having full knowledge of the facts;
Smith v. Wyckoff, 3 Sandf. Ch. 77, holding that one taking note with knowledge
of failure of consideration in same cannot recover.
— Bona fide assignee after maturity.

Cited in Perry v. Mays, 2 Bail L. 354; Hartnett v. Adler, 15 Daly, 69,— holding
that assignee for value of a note after maturity stands in position of assignee of
chose in action and not of an indorsee of commercial paper ; Comstock v. Hoag, 5
Wend. 600, holding that holder of note payable to bearer in possession of payee
after due cannot maintain an action upon it against the maker, if the payee be
mere agent, and the persons having beneficial interest in note forbid its payment to
him; Gleason v. Moen, 2 Duer, 639; Havens v. Huntington, 1 Cow. 387, — holding
that one taking notes after they become due take them subject to every defense
which existed between the original parties at the time of the transfer to him;
Woodfolk v. Blount, 3 Hayw. (Tenn.) 147, 9 A. D. 736, as to the defenses which can
be interposed against holder of bill indorsed without recourse after it is due or
payment refused.

Cited in reterence notes in 16 A. S. R. 666, on purchase of note after maturity;
16 A. D. 415, on defenses to, overdue note; 3© A. D. 710, as to what defenses in-
dorsee of overdue note is subject.

Cited in notes in 46 L.R.A. 776, on defense that transfer of negotiable paper
after maturity was unauthorized; 46 L.R.A. 758, on rights acquired by trans-
fer of negotiable paper after maturity.
Delivery In escrow.

Cited in Huntington v. Smith, 4 Conn. 235, holding certain notes to have been
delivered in escrow.

S AM. DEC. 427, &MANS v. TURNBULL, 2 JOHNS. SI 3.
Ownership In lands subject to easement.

Cited in M'Donald v. Lindall, 3 Rawle, 492, holding that if land is given as a
way the fee remains in grantor and if it ever becomes unnecessary as a way the
grantor may close it.
Rights of co-owners of easement.

Cited in Mershon v. Wanamaker, 29 Pa. Co. Ct. 177, 12 Pa. Dist. R. 585 (af-
firmed in 208 Pa. 292, 57 Atl. 569), on rights of one common grantee of easement
asserting superior burden to another.
Construction of grants.

Cited in United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 691, 8 L. ed. 547, holding that grant
is to be construed according to intention of the parties.

Cited in reference note in 21 A. S. R. 656, on construction of grant of easement.
Possession indicative of title.

Cited in McFarlane v. Kerr, 10 Bosw. 249, holding that cutting sedge on land
below high-water mark not such an occupation of land as to amount to adverse
possession.

— Estoppel by acquiescence.

Distinguished in Miller v. Piatt, 5 Duer, 272, holding that owner of land by
merely suffering the erection of a wall of a new building on his land was not
estopped from setting up his title.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



379 NOTES ON AMERICAN DECISIONS. [422-431

Littoral and riparian rights.

Cited in United States v. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Woodb. & M. 401, Fed. Cas.
No. 15,867, holding high water the line between public and private rights; Schulte
t. Warren, 120 111. App. 10, holding that owner of land bounded by margin of
-stream, whether nevigable or non-navigable, takes to the middle thread of the
stream ; McManus v. Carmichael, 3 Iowa, 1, holding that while the Mississippi is
navigable in fact the owner of an island may have some private rights in the
adjacent bed of the river; Mulry v. Norton, 100 N. Y. 424, 53 A. R. 206, 3 N. E.
581 (affirming 29 Hun, 660), holding that gradual and imperceptible accretions
belong to riparian owner, but sudden and considerable accretions belong to the
sovereign; Gould v. Hudson River R. Co. 6 N. Y. 522 (dissenting opinion), as to
rights of riparian owners between high and low-water mark.

Cited in notes in 54 A. D. 584, on alluvion; 45 L.R.A. 242, on conflicting rignts
of owner and public as to land between high and low-water mark; 100 A. D.
110, as to what passes under grant of ingress and egress and of fishing and fowl-
ing.

— Right to seaweed and like.

Cited in Church v. Meeker, 34 Conn. 421 ; Carr v. Carpenter, 22 R. I. 528, 53
L.R.A. 333, 48 Atl. 805; Kenyon v. Nichols, 1 R. I. 106; Nudd v. Hobbs, 17 N. H.
524; East Hampton v. Kirk, 6 Hun, 257; Parsons v. Miller, 15 Wend. 561;
Phillips v. Rhodes, 7 Met. 322, — holding that seaweed which is thrown up along
the shore >elongs to owner of beach; Hill v. Lord, 48 Me. 83, holding that right to
take seaweed may be conveyed by the owner of an estate without conveying the
soil, or it may be acquired by prescription; Clement v. Burns, 43 N. H. 609, hold-
ing that riparian owner upon navigable waters may maintain trespass for re-
moval of manure and sand between high and low-water mark ; Anthony v. Gifford,
2 Allen, 549, holding that seaweed afloat between high and low- water marks be-
longs to public.

Cited in reference note in 16 A. R. 53, on right to seaweed deposited between
high and low-water mark.

Cited in note in 23 E. R. C. 853, on right of finder to goods floating at sea.

Distinguished in Mather v. Chapman, 40 Conn. 382. 16 A. R. 46, holding that
seaweed cast and left on shore, between high and low-water mark, belongs to the
public; Chapman v. Kimball, 9 Conn. 38, 21 A. D. 707, holding that right to sea-
weed growing below low-water mark is in the public.

— Right to ice.

Cited in Brookville & M. Hydraulic Co. y. Butler, 91 Ind. 134, 46 A. R. 580,
holding that owner of easement to overflow another's land not entitled to the ice,
it belonging to owner of fee; Washington Ice Co. v. Shortall, 101 111. 46, 40 A. R. '
196; State v. Pottmeyer, 33 Ind. 402, 5 A. R. 224,— holding that ice attached to
soil belongs to owner of bed of stream.

Cited in note in 38 A. R. 257, on right to take ice from streams.
Effect of an award.

Cited in Merrick's Estate, 5 Watts & S. 9. holding that an award of arbitrators
chosen by the parties is conclusive of the controversy; Crabtree v. Green, 8 Ga,
8, holding that although an award may not have the operation of conveying land
it will estop the parties to it from setting up title contrary to its terms.

S AM. DEC. 431, SCOTT v. MBBY, 2 JOHNS. SS«.
Delivery at destination as necessary to earn freight.



Online LibraryAbraham Clark Freeman John ProffattThe American decisions: cases of general value and authority ..., Volume 3 → online text (page 106 of 118)