Open main menu

Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 2.djvu/307

This page needs to be proofread.


regarded as contractnal, since the tort could be waived and assumpsit brought, and the Constitution forbids the passage of any law impairing the obligation of contracts. Untied States y, Williams, 19 Pac. Rep. 288 (Mont.).

Contract — Acceptance of offer by Telegram. — A contract made by telegraph is completed when a telegram accepting an offer is despatched. Cowan V. O' Connor ^ 20 Q. B. D. 640 (Eng.).

'Phis case is, in effect, one more authority added to the list in support of the proposition that a contract is complete on the mailing of the letter accepting an offer. Household Ins, Co, v. Grants 4 Ex. D. 216. See i Harv. Law Rev. 146, for a moot-court decision by Prof. Frederick Pollock in support of this view. The theoretical objections to this view are clearly stated in LangdelVs Sum. of the Law of Contracts, §§ 6-16, with a full discussion of the authority pro and con.

Contract — Consideration — Part Payment of Debt. — The doctrine of Foakes v. Beer, 9 App. Cas. 605, that the payment by a debtor of part of a debt actually due is not a good consideration for a contract not to take proceedings for the recovery of the residue, is not applicable to a case where a solicitor gave his personal check for part of the sum due from his client to another; because here there is something which can be a " new and different benefit to the person entitled to the larger sum of money/' and there is, therefore, sufficient consider, ation for an accord and satisfaction. Bidder v. Bridges^ L. R. 37 Ch. D. 406.

The case is criticised in 4 Law Quart 368, as frittering away the rule laid down in Foakes v. Beer.

Contract for the Sale of Land — Devise of the Land to Vendee — Specific Performance. — Defendant contracted to buy land of plaintiff's testa- tor, but before conveyance or payment of the purchase-money, the testator died, devising the land to defendant and another equally. Heldt that the devise hav- ing been assented to by defendant, superseded, and so relieved defendant from all liability under, the contract. Taylor v. Hargrove, 7 S. E. Rep. 647 (N. C).

Contract — Specific Performance. — The vendee of land, which was sit- uated in another State, agreed to give his note for the purchase-price and tu secure it by mortgage on the land. After conveyance of the land he refused to give the note and mortgage. Held^ that vendee's promise may be enforced in equity, on the ground that the remedy at law is inadequate. — Hicks v. Turck^ 40 N. W. Rep. 339 (Mich.).

Deeds — Quitclaim Deed in Chain of Title — Bona Fide Purchaser. — A guarantee in a warranty deed, whose grantor has a warranty deed, and who acts in good faith and without actual notice, is entitled to protection as a bona fide purchaser, notwithstanding the existence of a quitclaim deed in the chain of title. Sherwood v. Moelle, 36 Fed. Rep. 478 (Neb.).

Evidence — Writings — Condition Precedent proved by Parol. — In an action on a written agreement to raft logs, it was held not permissible to show by oral evidence that the logs were not to be rafted until the plaintiff furnished the necessary rafting gear. Meekins v. Newberry ^ 7 S. E. Rep. 655 (N. C).

It is generally held permissible to prove by oral evidence a separate oral agree- ment constituting a condition precedent to any liability under a written contract. See Steph. Dig. Ev. § 90 (3), and cases cited.

Fraudulent Conveyances — Insurance Poucies — Rights of Credttors against Beneficiaries. — Insurance taken out by a husband upon his own life for the benefit of his wife and children, in jurisdictions where the proceeds may enure to her or their separate use, cannot be recovered by such creditors, although the husband was insolvent when the policies were issued, and the pre. miums were paid out of his own money, since such insurance is taken upon the interest of the wife and children in the husband's life. Nor can creditors recover out of the proceeds of such policy the amount of the premiums so paid, unless there is proof of actual fraud on the part of the wife or the insurance com- pany, or the provision for the family is excessive. Cent, Nat. Bank v. Hume, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41; s. c. 16 Wash. L. Rep. 777.

This, say the court, is not like the case where a husband, having insured his own life for benefit of himself, his executors, etc., subsequently assigns this policy to his wife and children, such assignment by an insolvent husband being in fraud of creditors. The husband here does not insure his own interest in his life, but takes out the policy on the insurable interest which his wife and children have in his life; he virtually gives his wife and children the annual