Lowrie v. S. Salz

Appeal—Time fob Taking — Dismissal. —An appeal from a judgment, if taken more than one year after its entry, will be dismissed.

Hew Trial—Insufficiency of Evidence — Statement. — Where a motion for a new trial is made on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision, but the statement fails to specify any particular in which the evidence is insufficient, the statement as to that ground of the motion must be disregarded.

Id.—Service by Mail—Proof of.—The proof of service by mail of the notice of appeal, held, sufficient.

Agency—Death of Principal. —The authority of an agent to bind his principal by contracts made in his name is terminated by the death of the principal.

Id.—Agent Assuming to Act after Principal’s Death—Trust.—A person assuming to be the agent of another, who receives property or benefits accruing by reason of such assumed agency, which property belongs to the estate of the principal for whom he assumes to act, may be treated as a trustee, and is liable as such to the estate of his assumed principal.

Id. —Warehouse Receipt — Possession — Delivery — Conversion. — James Hogan, being indebted to the estate of one Lowrie, for whom one John Munson assumed to be the agent, deposited certain cans of fruit in a warehouse, and directed the warehouseman to give him a receipt as if deposited by Munson. A receipt was accordingly given to Hogan as follows: “Received in Hiles warehouse from John Munson the following cases of canned goods on storage, for account and risk of- (not transferable or negotiable),” etc. Hogan had previously informed Munson that he would deposit fruit in the warehouse sufficient to secure his indebtedness. He never gave the receipt to Munson, but borrowed money on it from the defendants, to whom, upon the surrender of the receipt, a new one was given by the defendants. The defendants afterwards assigned their security, and the fruit was sold by their assignee. The plaintiffs, the executors of the will of Lowrie, thereupon brought this action for the conversion of the fruit. Held, that the first receipt and deposit, not having been made for the account of Munson, did not give him possession or constructive possession of the fruit, and that as he could not, without a delivery of the receipt to him, have recovered the property, the plaintiffs for whom he was assuming to act were in no better condition.

Id. —Evidence — Opinion of Witness. —On the trial, the warehouseman was asked whom ho understood to be the depositor of the fruit: held, that the question was improper, as calling for the opinion of the witness.