4886 
THE riURAL NEW YORKER. 
693 
dant and his wife, and acknowledged and re¬ 
corded in the same manner as conveyances of 
real estate, otherwise the lien of the mechanic 
is subordinate to the right of homestead, 
Mortgages of Future Crops.— The Min¬ 
nesota statute relating to the tiling of chattel 
mortgages is applicable to mortgages of future 
crops, the seedfor which had not been sown at 
the time the mortgage was executed, and which 
were, ther fore, not literally in esse. So held 
by the Minnesota Supreme Court in the case 
of Miller vs. Chapel, The Court says that the 
theory upon which chattel mortgages of crops 
to be grown are supported is that they are 
property having a potential existence, and that 
the mortgagor being in possession of the land 
upon ,which they are to be’grown, has a pres- 
authorities, as against the adjoining owner, to 
confer upon any person the right to make use 
of the highway for any other pui-pose than to 
pass and repass without the consent of the 
owner of the fee. 
ii\isccUancou5 
LAW, 
RAILROAD FENCES, 
Chattel Mortgage.— One Stewart held a 
chattel mortgage upon wheat and certain 
other personal property belonging to one 
Witherell. The mortgage, which was ad¬ 
mitted to be usurious, contained a clause auth¬ 
orizing the mortgagee to take possession of the 
mortgaged property' before the mortgage be¬ 
came due. A few days before, the mortgage 
matured Stewart procured from Witherell a 
writing by which the latter in terms “turned 
over the property” covered by the mortgage 
to Stewart. The wheat, how'ever, was not re- 
As a rule, railroad companies are obliged to 
fence their tracks, and are responsible for all 
injuries to stock, whether by uegligence or not, 
in case they have not done so. In one case 
some sheep got, through a railroad fence ami 
were killed on the track. The company plead¬ 
ed that the fence was good enough for ordi- 
naryTpurposes; but that the keeping of sheep 
in that field had not been contemplated. The 
Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. In Maine 
legal and sufficient 
fences must, be made 
on each side of the 
road [passing through 
inclosed or improved , /||| Jr 
land or wood-lots be- __ / 
longing to a farm, 
and the companies ’A . 
are liable to a penal- V , 
ty for failing to make 
and repair them. In 
New Hampshire, if jgfj 
the roads neglect to ^ 
maintain such fences, [gc? . ' ~'- J 
the owner of the land y. - 
can build them and . V ' fltSSgj '"ISh 
recover double the 
cost from the com- V . ^ 
where necessary, aud ~ ~ 
in case of failure to 
do so, are liable for 
absence of fences, ex- 
owner has been paid 
for feuciug the road, 
In Massachusetts [the 
companies are oblig- l 0 • 
ed to fence the entire 
length of the roads 
except at the cross¬ 
ings of high ways, etc. ~. 
In Connecticut every 
company is required • . ""V, ~ * 
to build and main- 
tain fences cm both | 
road ^ cojnmi fc W --- •- . .. 
cessary. If the com- j^aK'r 
adjoining lands to 
make aud maintain - . 
such fences, and the 
latter fail to do so |p|,y 
within 00 days after 
notification, the roads ^;• BPHS 
may build the fences | jilt WT xV ; 
and recover the cost Ij ||]|y ( ' • ^ 
in an action for debt. j |f|| iia |L' 
Where there are no yl y^ri=2fl 
laws, and no obliga- \ 
tion is imposed by /))Hjjj'ju 
covenant ov prescrip- . 1(1 y. W j L ■/’ ;':ij j ywCsi^l 
tion, the common- 
law doctrine is jo 
land than is the in- j Jfr 1 .>.* 
dividual. At com- p /%.. 
mon law, owners of tj fbffe Pwg 
adjoining lands owe ’‘ ! $f Jut 1 i |1 iyjj|■Iff 
each other no duties, r Mtm m | , 
and are subject to no 
obligations to main¬ 
tain fences. As own¬ 
ers of land, railroad 
companies are subject only to the same liabili¬ 
ties as other owners. 
Railroad men frequently complain that 
funnel's along the lines often have a strong in¬ 
clination to find surreptitiously a profitable 
market for poor stock on the railroad tracks. 
The late Col. Thomas A. Scott, I he great Penn¬ 
sylvania railroad king, used to soy that to en¬ 
hance the value of scrub stock no cross was 
more effective than a cross by a railroad en¬ 
gine. 
Here are some recent decisions of interest to 
farmers: 
Homestead Exemption.— In Kentucky, ac¬ 
cording to the decision of the Court of Appeals 
of that State, in the case of Roberts w>\ Riggs 
et at., the release or waiver of the homestead 
exemption, in order to be valid as against a 
mechanic’s lien for additional improvements, 
must be in writing, subscribed by the defen- 
ent vested right to have the crops when they 
come into actual existence. 
Use of Public Highway.— According to 
a late decision of the New York Supreme 
Court (McCaffrey vs. Smith) neither the State 
legislature nor a village can confer authority 
on a person to occupy port of the public street 
as a hack stand as against, the adjacent lot 
owners. The court said: The legislature un¬ 
doubtedly had the power to authorize the vil¬ 
lage authorities to pass ordinances and by¬ 
laws (which they might enforce) limiting aud 
restricting the use which the public might 
make of the streets beyond their rights of 
travel—ordinances whiohjeould be enforced as 
against the adjoining owners themselves, for 
the purpose of keeping the streets open to free 
and uninterrupted travel. But^the legislature 
had not the power, ueither had the municipal 
moved, but still remained in Witberell’s gran- ! 
ary and under his control. Stewart after¬ 
ward came to Witherell's premises and without 
his consent removed and sold the wheat. The 
Supreme Court of Minnesota held .Witherell 
vs. Stewart) that'the mortgagor was entitled 
to recover the value of the wheat taken in an 
action for the conversion of the same. 
^t/RAL 
XEW-YORKEff 
EYE 
JEnpmiouSSforUmestowaning claimants He burltKl 
in the,Courts of Chancery. Bank of England, England, 
Germany, and other countries. Ovor|4SO,C(m,ux\ which 
belong to th<tpcopto, Including all classes of the com i 
inunity. 'The Chancery Paymaster will gladly tmv I 
thefmoney to.the’rightfui;owucrs If they will only put 
Port to the Secretary 
of State, savs the law 
of 1852 provides for escheating all unclaimed 
estates within a specified time, and adds: “The 
Jaw has effectually an 1 flnallv disposed of ail 
unclaimed funds and estates'in this country 
originating prior to March. 1852. There has, 
therefore, since 1852 been no such thing in 
Holland as an unclaimed estate originating 
prior to that date.” 
Oyer 30 years ago James Buchanan, then 
Minister to England, exploded the mvth about 
the great Evans estate, and since then the 
cupidity of gullible Americans has been ex¬ 
cited by the equaliv mythical Jennens estate 
($500,000,000); the Mosher estate I$o2,000,l)00) • 
the Bradford estate if 122,000, Oi hi, ; the Law- 
vence-Townley or Chase-Townley estate (88(H),- 
000,000), to say nothing of numerous other 
vast properties in the United Kingdom, Hol¬ 
land, and Germany. Half a dozen or 
more of these swindles have teen, frern 
time to time, exposed in this Department. 
hoever invests .vO cents, or even a postage 
stamp, in the pursuit of any inheritance on the 
list of the “British-American Claim Agency” 
will, tu 'hat extent, lose money aml[prove him¬ 
self a gullible, greedy k fool. 
