網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

With the evidence in the case that plaintiff | held until the prosecutions therefor are ended denied ownership and asserted that Miller and the fines paid, and for the selling of such owned them, that plaintiff pleaded guilty and liquors to pay the fines in case they are unpaid. paid a fine for storing the goods for Miller, that plaintiff was in jail when the goods were

However, in a case where the plaintiff seeking shipped to Moberly consigned to Miller and

to recover liquors admits he got them for the Miller got them and brought them to Columbia,

purpose of violating the law and the Court and that both plaintiff and Miller were engaged

is convinced that the result of turning them. in the business of violating the liquor laws,

over to plaintiff will enable him to violate the can it be said the trial court is compelled to i

law, it is an interesting question whether, in believe plaintiff and his witnesses when they

such a case, the Court may not withhold its aid say he, and not Miller, owns and is entitled to

and leave the plaintiff "unsanctified by its favor the possession of the liquor? We do not think

and unaided by its process,' even in the absence so. If the judgment had been the other way,

of a statute forbidding recovery or destroying defendants could with almost the same force

property rights in the goods sought. It is unurge that the Court should have found that

necessary for us to decide this interesting ques. Miller owned them and should therefore have

tion, however, for the instructions given by the upheld the defense. It follows from what we

Court do not show that the judgment was based have said that the judgment should be upheld

on this ground. As stated before, they show and that there was no error in the modification

rather that the judgment was reached because of plaintiff's instructions 2 and 3 as to the plain

the Court did not believe plaintiff was the owntiff's sole ownership.

er, or at least was not the sole and exclusive

owner, of the goods. The plaintiff, while insisting that he was the exclusive owner of the goods, admitted he got

The judgment is affirmed. them for the purpose and with the intention All concur. of selling them in violation of the law. This raises an interesting question whether or not a Court is bound to aid him in obtaining pos

Note-Recovery of Property: Intended for Illesession of such goods thereby enabling him to gal Use. The case of Blunk v. Waugh, 32 Okla. violate the law, even though there be no law 616, 122 Pac. 717, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1093, is in Missouri destroying property rights in intoxi.

not precisely on all fours with the instant case, cating liquors. Courts will not enforce rights

in that the Blunk case was between the owner arising out of an illegal contract. Oscanyan v.

or alleged owner and a trespasser. We think,

however, the principle therein declared must exArms Co., 103 U. S. 261, 26 6 L. Ed. 539; Hag

tend beyond the original parties, for all subsegerty v. St. Louis Ice Co., 143 Mo. 238, 44 S. W.

quent parties trace title through them, and a new 1114, 40 L. R. A. 151, 65 Am. St. Rep. 647; Smith trespass would stand where the original stood. v. Rose, 192 Mo. App. 580, 184 S. W. 910. Nor will they assist a party to regain what he has

The fact that the action of replevin is an action parted with for an illegal purpose, and the same

in tort would seem not to derogate from the

principle of Courts leaving parties to an illegal principle prevails where it is attempted to re

contract where they stand, for rights in replevin cover that which was intended to be sold in

are based upon the implied duty of an unlawful violation of law. Marienthal v. Shafer, 6 Iowa holder to restore what he withholds. If he with223. In Blunk v. Waugh, 32 Okla. 616, 122 Pac. holds under a contract even with a semblance 717, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1093, it was held that

of legality this might defeat replevin, as the semblance of right would create an issue that

ought to be resolved, sav in trover or for ac“If the courts will not open their doors to

countability in assumpsit. The question is whether enforce an illegal contract, we do not think

Courts will permit an abuse of its jurisdiction or they should lend their aid to enable a person

of its process in whatsoever form of action either to unlawfully engage in the liquor traffic.”

is invoked. The Blunk case says: "If the Courts

will not open their doors to enforce an illegal See, also, Robertson v. Porter, 1 Ga. App. 223,

contract, we do not think thev should lend their 57 S. E. 993; Howe v. Stewart, 40 Vt. 145; Crig.

aid to enable a person to unlawfully engage in ler v. Shepler, 79 Kan. 834, 101 Pac. 619, 23 L. the liquor traffic, particularly where the statute R. A. (N. S.) 500. In most, if not all, of these

provides that there shall be no property rights

of any kind whatsoever in any liquors kept or cases, however, there were statutes which either

used for illegal purposes." forbade recovery or destroyed property rights in the goods in question. There is no such The real thought in the mind of this annotator statute in Missouri, and, on the contrary, sec

is whether, if liquor is bought and put into the

possession of a bailee for an illegal purpose or tions 4855 and 4856, R. S. 1909, provide that

use, unknown to the bailee, and afterwards its liquors being sold illegally may be taken and !

possession is demanded from him by the bailor.

And whether, if while it is in the bailee's possession, the illegal intent is conceived or then first revealed to him. In either case, would there be more than one party to the illegal contract ?

ITEMS OF PROFESSIONAL

INTEREST.

BAR ASSOCIATION MEETINGS FOR 1920

WHEN AND WHERE TO BE HELD.

Thus in Ridgeway v. West, 60 Ind, 371, it was held that in an ordinance to suppress gaming and gaming houses and to destroy instruments and devices of gaming, yet the owner of such devices could maintain replevin for seizure by an officer. But the ordinance was construed not specically to authorize seizure and destruction. Therefore, though the only purpose of retention of such devices might mean an intended illegal use, this did not vest in a city the right of possession as conclusively anticipatory of such purpose.

American-Statler Hotel, St. Louis, Mo., August 25, 26 and 27.

Alabama-Birmingham, April 30 and May 1.
Arkansas-Hot Springs, June 2 and 3.
Georgia-Tybee Island, May 27, 28 and 29.
Illinois-Hotel Sherman, May 28 and 29.
Indiana-Indianapolis, July 7 and 8.
Iowa-Cedar Rapids, June 24 and 25. •
Maryland-Hotel Chelsea, Atlantic City, N.
J., June 24, 25 and 26.

Michigan-Detroit, June 25 and 26.
Mississippi-Meridian, April 28 and 29.
New Jersey-Atlantic City, June 11 and 12.

North Carolina--Asheville, June 29, 30 and
July 1.
| South Carolina-Columbia, April 23 and 24.

In Monty v. Anderson, 25 Iowa 383, the ruling went a little further than in the Ridgeway case, and declared that though possession of liquor was in violation of law, yet it retains its character as property until seized in the specific way the law provided for its seizure. The opposite to this view would be to say that "all men may have a right to destroy intoxicating liquor wherever it may be found as a public nuisance." If liquor is contraband as property it is contraband only as to direct proceedings against it.

In Baron v. Arnold, 16 R. I. 22, the same kind of ruling was made, the Court saying the statute

HUMOR OF THE LAW. "does not render such property open or free booty to anyone who might seize it.'

A woman recently selecting a hat at a milIn Donahue v. Maloney, 49 Conn. 163, the stat liner's asked cautiously: "Is there anything ute provided specifically that no owner or pos

about these feathers that might bring me trousessor should be given an action for recovery of any intoxicating liquor. The Court said knowl

ble with the Bird Protection Society?" edge came to it of an intended unlawful use "Oh, no, madame," said the milliner, prevented recovery from another. This knowl "But did they not belong to some bird?" peredge by the Court was held to bar right of re

sisted the lady. covery. It would seem that the Court penalizes such an intent with a kind of forfeiture. This

"Well, madame," returned the milliner, pleaswe doubt very greatly to be a good legal princi antly, “these feathers are the feathers of a ple.

howl, and the howl, you know, madame, seein' In Robertson v. Porter, 1 Ga. App. 223, 57 S.

as 'ow fond he is of mice, is more of a cat than E. 993, the record does not show that there was a bird." -Tit-Bits. any specific authority given to seize for destruction or other disposition of the implements of a

The following is told of a late railway maggaming house, and the sheriff, defendant in replevin, said retention or possession “is neces

| nate and a prominent Philadelphia lawyer. Said sary to the continued abatement of said gaming the magnate to the lawyer: house and nuisance," and its recovery would ena "I want to show that this law is unconstituble plaintiff to re-establish and continue the nui

tional. Do you think you can manage it?" sance. The Court held that plaintiff's action was not sustainable, saying: “The law has the right

"Easily," answered the lawyer. of self-defense; it will not by its own strong arm "Well, go ahead and get familiar with the assist in placing into the possession of anyone

case." instrumentalities designed for no other purpose than the breaking of the law.” It seems to us

"I'm already at home in it. I know my that a general principle of this kind, merely re

ground perfectly. It's the same law you had serves power in the law to destroy a rem whose me prove was constitutional two years ago." possession is directly attacked and not to allow

Lancaster News Journal. anyone who may take it into his head to act as the law's defender. This would tend to a hurly burly administration, and to a hurly burly abuse The Court-Considering that you are the wife of the law. And especially individuals seeking of the prisoner, do you think you are qualified their private advantage should not be allowed to

to act as a juror in this case? call a thing property in the collection of a claim against an alleged owner. There seems to us an

The Lady-Well, your honor, if you will only inconsistency as to which no real benefit to the give me a chance I think I can convince the public can be presumed to arise.

eleven other jurors that he's guilty.-Life.

C.

[ocr errors]

............... 23

.........

14

52

WEEKLY DIGEST.

purposes, claims paid by preferential or fraudulent transfers are to be included.-Boston West

Africa Trading Co. v. Quaker City Morocco Co., Weekly Digest of Important Opinions of the

U. S. C. C. A., 261 Fed. 665. State Courts of Last Resort and of the Federal

4. Bastards-Paternity.--Evidence in corrobCourts.

oration of the mother on the question of paterCopy of Opinion in any case referred to in this digest

nity of an illegitimate child is not necessary.may be procured by sending 25 cents to us or to the West

State v. Deike, Minn., 175 N. W. 1000. Pub. Co., St. Paul, Minn.

5. Beneficial Associations -- Reinstatement.-Where members of a beneficial association lodge

were expelled by action of its grand arbitration Alabama

89

committee on charges, a bill for an injunction Arkansas.....

.........34, 65, 84

and for reinstatement is properly dismissed, California........................37, 41, 57, 59, 63, 69, 75, 87

where it appears that plaintiffs had not appealed Colorado

..................38

from the action of the grand arbitration comConnecticut ...... .....

mittee to the supreme arbitration committee, as Florida

1

they were permitted to do by the laws of the Georgia..

..........24, 33, 92

organization.-Acri v. Brucia, Pa., 108 Atl. 717. Idaho ...

..............19, 60

6. Bills and Notes-Consideration. To be Jllinois.....

..................2, 15, 20 54, 64, 79 Indiana

valid and legally enforceable as between the ................26, 27

parties, an agreement or undertaking of any Towa ............. 6, 29, 51, 78, 86

kind must be supported by consideration, a rule Kansas......

.18, 53, 70, 88

to which commercial paper, in its indorsement, Kentucky ..............

.............. 42, 43, 94

as well as its execution, affords no exception.-Massachusetts

.....................13, 93, 95

State Sav. Bank of Logan v. Osborn, Ia., 175 N. Minnesota

........................4, 40, 61

W. 964. Mississippi

.......50 Missouri........................................16, 21, 28, 72, 81, 82

7.- Good Faith.-A presumption of good Nebraska ..

..9, 45, 66

faith attaches in favor of the holder, who takes New Hampshire

a note for value before maturity; but the preHampshire .....................

....67 New York...... ..................35, 56, 80, 91

sumption is rebuttable.- Naylorv. Lovell, oklahoma .....

.................25, 74

Wash., 186 Pac. 855. Pennsylvania

.........5 8.--Notice to Transferee.—Where the exSouth Carolina .................. 32, 47, 49, 55, 71, 76 pression of the holder or transferror's fiduciary South Dakota .ro

character appears from the papers accompanyTennessee

.......90 ing the note, the purchaser takes it with Texas........

................8, 10, 48, 58 notice of the transferror's limited authority to U. S. C. C. App. .............

...............1, 3, 22 negotiate it.—Fidelity Trust Co. v. Fowler, United States D. C............

..................62 | Tex., 217 S. W. 953. United States s. C..

...................77, 85 9.- Renewal.—The renewal of a note by Vermont

...........17, 39, 46

giving a new note does not pay the original Virginia

.....36

debt or create a new indebtedness.-Spear v. Washington. ......................... 7, 11, 12, 30, 44, 68, 83 Olson, Neb., 175 N. W. 1012. West Virginia

................31

10. Burglary — Entry. — Entry into a Wisconsin ..

.................... 73

woman's sleeping apartment by cutting a 1. Bankruptcy – General Assignment. -- A

screen door was burglarious if made for the general assignee, on bankruptcy of the assignor

purpose of rape upon her.-Hays v. State, Tex., within four months, is not an adverse claimant

217 S. W. 938. with respect to his claim for expenses and serv 11. Brokers - Producing Purchaser. - A ices, and so entitled to have his rights tested in broker, making a sales contract with knowla plenary suit, since the assignment is itself an edge of defects in his principals' title, cannot act of bankruptcy, and is avoided entirely by recover compensation upon the purchaser's rebankruptcy proceedings, which vest the court fusal to complete the purchase, for he has not with the right to possession of all the property, produced a purchaser willing to buy what he which may be recovered in a summary proceed knew his principal had to offer.-Brownell v. ing.–Galbraith V. Vallely, U. S. C. C. A., 261 Hanson, Wash., 186 Pac. 873. Fed. 670.

12. Carriers of Goods-Liability to Shipper, 2.-- Notice of Claim.--The lien given a sub -It is the carrier's duty to furnish suitable contractor by Lien Act, $ 35, exists from the equipment, and if freight be damaged in consedate of the original contract, but notice of the quence of its failure in this particular, it is claim of lien must be given within the time

liable to the shipper therefor.-Pacific Fruit & required by statute to preserve and enforce it. Produce Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., Wash., 186 so that the liens of subcontractors were not

Pac. 852. defeated by the adjudication as bankrupts of 13.- Exemption from Liability -A stiputhe original contractors before the statutory lation exempting a carrier from loss by leaknotices of the liens of the subcontractors were age of the goods is reasonable and enforceable. given.--Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Kransz, -Florida Cotton Oil Co. v. Clyde S. S. Co., Ill., 125 V. E. 730.

Mass., 125 N. E. 855. 3.- Preference.--In computing the indebted 11.- Special Damages.-If owner of goods ness of an alleged bankrupt for jurisdictional I would charge carrier with any special dam

tearing down building. that precaution would be taken to protect adjoining building, was binding upon the company.-Huber v. H. R. Douglas, Inc., Conn., 108 Atl. 727.

24. Subsequent creditors. A transfer of property by a corporation in consideration of certain shares of its capital stock, through such transfer might have been void as to existing debts of the corporation, was not void as against subsequent creditors, if not made for the purpose of defrauding those who might become creditors.-- Cohen v. George, Ga., 101 S. E. 803.

25.-- (riminal Law-Drunkeness. — A person, not previously insane from indulgence in liquore, who voluntarily becomes intoxicated to such an extent as to cause unconsciousness of his acts, is not irresponsible for the acts done by him.-Collier v. State, Okla, 186 Pac. 963.

26.-- Plea of Guilty.-A plea of guilty made by accused advisedly with full knowledge of his rights and of the consequences amounts to 2 judicial confession of the crime and a waiver of right to trial by jury.- Batchelor v. State, Ind.. 125 N E 773.

27.-Damages.-Physical Examination. A motion to require plaintiff in a personal injury action to submit to a physical examination is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which discretion is reviewable on appeal and correctable in cases of abuse, but the refusal of such a motion when a reasonable and clear case for examination is presented is such an abuse of discretion as will operate to reverse a judgment.--Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Griswold, I

Co" reverse a jude.

289 re & W. R

125 N. E

ages, he must have communicated to carrier all facts not ordinarily attending the carriage or the particular character and value of the property.-Florida East Coast Ry, Co. v. Peters, Fla., 83. So. 559.

15.- Warehouseman.--['nder a bill of lading providing that “property not removed" within 48 hours after notice of its arrival may be kept in car subject to a reasonable charge for storage and carriers' liability as ware"houseman only, etc., carrier was liable as a carrier for loss of goods occurring within 48 hours after notice to consignee, even though consignee broke the seals, accepted the shipment, and began unloading the car.-Mark Owen & Co. v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., Ill., 125 X. E. 767.

16. Carriers of Live Stock-Inherent Vice.The carrier being an insurer is liable for death of a hog in transit unless it died from its own inherent weakness or vice.-Burgher v. Wabash Ry. Co., Mo., 217 S. W. 854.

17. Charities--Naked Trustee.--Where land was deeded to a trustee with no active duties to perform for the benefit of the church society, the beneficiary will be regarded as the true owner.--Davis v. Union Meeting House Soc., Vt., 108 Atl, 704.

18.--Perpetuity.- Where the entire annual income of a residuary estate is devised in perpètuity to a city for a public purpose, the legal effect of such a devise operates as a grant to the city of the entire estate, with limitation only as to its use.-Schnack v. City of Larned, Kan., 186 Pac. 1012.

19. Chattel Mortgages-Retention of Possession.-Where a chattel mortgagor is permitted to retain possession of a stock of goods and dispose of it in the ordinary course of trade without applying the proceeds to the payment of the mortgage debt, the mortgage is void as to attaching creditors.--Kettenbach y. Walker, Idaho. 156 Pac. 912.

20. Commerce-Workmen.-Not every employe of an interstate carrier is engaged in "interstate commerce," but to be so engaged the work of the employe must constitute a real and substantial part of the interstate commerce in which the carrier is engaged; the true test being whether at the time of the injury the employe was engaged in interstate transportation or work so closely related to it as to be practically a part thereof.-Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. v. Industrial Commission, Ill., 125 X. E. 748.

21. Contracts-Moral Obligation. — Without some pre-existing obligation, a mere moral obligation is insufficient to constitute consideration.-Terry v. Terry, Mo., 217 S. W. 842.

22.--Mutuality.-Contract for certain number of cars of gasoline, having been construed by the parties as calling for shipment as ordered during a certain year, the objection of lack of mutuality in that no time was fixed for delivery except as buyers might order, could not be sustained.-American Refining Co. v. Bartman, U. S. C. C. A., 261 Fed. 661.

23.—Corporations-Promise of Office. - The promise of president and manager of contracting company in personal charge of the work of

28.-Death-Earning Capacity.-In case of a death claim, it is proper to show the condition of health, earning capacity, age, and habits of the party killed without pleading those specific facts. --Morton V. Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co., Mo., 217 S. W. 831.

29.---Eye Witnesses.-Where both persons in an automobile struck by a train were killed, and there was no eyewitness, the jury can infer, from the instinct of self-preservation, that they looked and listened before going onto the crossing --Barrett v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry Co., Iowa, 175 N. W, 950.

30.-Deeds-Ambiguity.-In construing a deed, the intent should be gathered from a consideration of all the language used after giving some meaning to every word, if reasonably possible, and, if the language is ambiguous, recourse may be had to the practical construction placed upon the deed by the parties.-Town of Gold Bar . Gold Bar Lumber Co., Wash., 186 Pac. 896.

31.— Natural Love and Affection. The natural love and affection between a mother and daughter is a sufficient consideration to sustain a conveyance. -Parr v. Campbell, Wash.. 186 Pac. 858.

32- Seal.-Aseal prima facie imports consideration, where none is alleged or proved, but is not conclusive of the issue. ---Dingle v. Major, S. C.. 101 S. E, 836.

33.-Divorce-Statute of Limitations. While lapse of time between the occurence of a ground for divorce and the application therefor may be considered by the jury and, if not satisfactorily explained, may be good ground for refusing divorce, yet the statute of limitations does not apply to bar such action.-Flynn V. Flynn, Ga., 101 S. E. 806.

34.-Dower-Executory Contract.-A widow is not entitled to dower in land purchased by her husband by executory contract, as against his grantee.-Corcorren v. Sharum, Ark., 217 S. W. 803.

35.-Easements In Gross.-An easement held by an individual distinct from the ownership of any lands is held in gross, and is, generally speaking, personal to the grantee, and neither assignable nor inheritable. Saratoga State Waters Corporation v. Pratt, N. Y., 125 N. E. 834.

36.— Prescription-No mere permissive use, however long continued, can ever ripen into an easement by prescription.-Landrum v. Tyler, Va., 101 S. E. 788.

37.-Eminent Domain-Double Damages. The value of condemned lands. arising from their availability for use in conjunction with other lands not taken, and the loss in value of lands not taken from their availability for use in conjunction with those taken, are wholly separate

and independent matters, and the plaintiff was mise the action.--Nothem v. Vonderharr, Iowa, not subjected to double damages for the taking 175 N. W. 967. of the landsby consideration of each -_Yolc Water & Power Co. v. Hudson, Cal., 186 Pat.

52.--Insurance Antedated Note. --- Where in772,

sured, who signed an antedated note, upon re

ceiving an antedated life policy, immediately 38.— Special Damage.-The owner of prop

wrote the company that he would not accept an erty not abutting on the part of a street that

antedated policy, and the company replied that is closed is entitled to compensation for damage

he had agreed to accept such policy and must special and peculiar to him, such as the sub

keep it, and insured said no more about the matstantial impairment of his right of access.

ter, and did not offer to return the policy, he Denver Union Terminal Ry. Co. v. Glodt, Colo.,

thereby apparently acquiesced in the situation, 186 Pac. 904.

and became liable on the note.-Sterling v. Bank 39,-Equity-Jurisdiction. The rule that, once of Lily, S. D., 175 N. W. 990. equity has taken jurisdiction of a case, it will

53. Conditions in Aplication. Conditions in retain it for all purposes and dispose of the en

application for life insurance made a part of the tire matter is confined to cases where the equity

contract that policy would not take effect until jurisdiction has been rightfully invoked.-Davis

delivered by insurer, and the first premium paid v. C'nion Meeting House, Vt., 108 Atl. 704.

in full, while insured's health was the same as 40.-Estoppel-Duty to Speak.-Where a mort described therein, were not waived by conduct gagee. prior to making the loan, inquired of a of agent in accepting less than full premium, and former owner of property as to his rights, such in assuring insured's wife while he was fatally owner held put to the disclosure of any claim sick that the policy was of force and would be then existing in his favor.--Havel v. Costello, paid, and in making out blank proof of death, Minn., 175 N. W. 1001.

Green y. Prudential Ins. Co., Kans., 186 Pac. 970. 41.-Executors and Administrators-Ancillary 54.- Insurable Interest.--One having no inAdministration. Where ancillary letters of ad surable interest in the life of another cannot proministration have not been issued in other

cure a policy of insurance on such life, and a states, the California courts may take jurisdic policy so procured is void at its inception, tion of a proceeding seeking an accounting as to Hawley V. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 11., 125 N. E. moneys and credits located outside the state.

707. Reed. v. Hollister, Cal., 186 Pac. 819.

55.- Notice of Cancellation - Where insured 42.- Expenses.--It is the duty of executors

was entitled to receive five days' notice in writto resist contest of will in good faith and to use

ing of intention to cancel his fire policy, there all legal and honorable means to sustain the was no effectual cancellation without such nowill, and to this end they have authority to em

tice given him.-Dallas v. Guardian Fire Ins. p!oy counsel and bind the estate for reasonable Co., S. C., 101 S. E. 859. fees.--McMillen's Ex'rs. V. McElroy, Ky., 217 S.

56.-Judgment-Set-Off.--Relief in equity by W. 927.

setting off one judgment against another is

granted, not of right, but in the exercise of dis43.-Fraudulent Conveyances -- Badge of

cretion, but such discretion is not unregulated by Fraud.-Lack of valuable consideration for a

principles. -Beecher V. Peter A. Vogt Mfg. Co., conveyance is a badge of fraud which creditors

N. Y., 125 N. E. 831. of the grantor may seize upon as means to.

57.--Landlord and Tenant-Re-entry-Stipula. compel the grantee to disgorge.-Hamilton v.

tions in lease as to rights of landlord to re-enCunningham, Ky., 217 S. W. 924.

ter, and as to rights of tenant to terminate lease, 44.-Frands, Statute 01-Oral Option. Where

will be strictly construed against the party for a mere oral option to buy real estate was given,

Whose benefit they are created, under Civ. Code, or offer to sell made in the absence of part $ 1442.-Exchange Securities Co. v. Rossini, Cal., performance such option or offer was void under 186 Pac. 828. the statute of frauds.-Stewart v. Cadeau, Wash., 58.--Repairs.-A landlord who agreed to re186 Pac. 894.

pair floor of rented premises is liable for the 45.-Gaming-Gambling Operation.-A contract negligent failure of his employe to replace a to operate in grain options to be adjusted ac defective plank in the floor, whereby injury recording to differences in market value thereof sulted to the tenant.---Pollack v. Perry, Texas, is a gambling operation contrary to public pol 217 S. W. 967. icy and void.-In re Lowe's Estate, Neb., 175 N. 59.----Retrospective Operation.-Alease may W. 1015.

operate retrospectively from the date of its

execution.-Acton Rock Co. v. Pine Utilities Co., 46.-Gifts-Inter Vivos.--To constitute a gift

Cal., 186 Pac. 809. inter vivos, there must be an intention on the

60.--Limitation of Actions - Acceleration, part of the donor to transfer the title to the

Where a contract contains an acceleration clause, property to the donee immediately and irrevoc

positive in its terms and without any optional ably, accompanied by such delivery as will place

features in it. a default under said clause renders the donee in complete possession and control of

the entire indebtedness due and the statute of the same, unless delivery is to a third person

limitations (Comp. St. 1919, § 6609) runs from for the donee.--Rice V. Bennington County Sav,

such default.-Canadian Birkbeck Investment & Bank, Vt. 108 Atl. 708.

Savings Co. v. Williamson, Idaho, 186 Pac, 916. 47.-Highways-Licenses.-A landowner per

61.-Malicious Prosecution-Probable Cause. mitting neighbors and occasional strangers to

Want of probable cause in a malicious prosecuuse a road over his property, as a matter of

tion case cannot be inferred from existence of favor and not of right, does not thereby convert

actual malice.-Buhner V. Reusse, Minn., 176 N. the road into a public highway.-Fanning v. W. 1005. Stroman, S. C., 101 S. E. 861.

62.- Master and Servant-Hours of Service 48.--HomicideDeadly Weapon. - Where one Act. The fact alone or violation of the Hours strikes another with a weapon calculated to pro of Service Act (Comp. St. $3 8677-8680) subjects duce death or serious bodily injury there is an the offending company to the prescribed penabsolute presumption that former intended to alty, and an unlawful intent is not necessary. kill or seriously injure the latter--Ware V U. S. v. Baker, t. S. D. C., 261 Fed. 703. State, Texas, 217 S. W. 946.

63.- Joint Action.-An insurance carrier and

an injured employe may jointly sue the party 49.---Self-Defense --The man who kills an

negligently causing the injury without a formal other must be without fault in provoking the

reward of workmen's compensation, since the difficulty, and if he is at fault the right of self

inability to pay the compensation is created by defense is not available.-State v. Brown, S. C.,

the act, and not by the award.-Moreno V. Los 101 S. E. 847.

Angeles Transfer Co., Cal., 186 Pac. 800. 50.-Hospitals-Private Gain.-A hospital con 64.----Safe Appliance.-In the absence of ducted for private gain is liable to a patient actual knowledge, a servant may assume that for injuries resulting from the negligence of the master has exercised due care to furnish nurses and employes, a patient being generally safe appliances and place of work; and if the admitted either under an express or implied servant, while in the exercise of ordinary care, obligation to receive reasonable care and atten suffers an injury from a neglect of that duty. tion for his safety such as his mental and physi the master is liable. Walsh v. West Baden cal condition, if known, may require.--Meridian Springs Co., Ill., 125 N. E. 727. Sanatorium V. Scruggs, Miss., 83 So. 532.

65.- Unsafe Tool.-_Where the master negli51-Infanty-Guardian ad Litem.-Where the gently furnishes a tool that is unsafe, the servcourt appoints a guardian in a will contest to ant does not assume the risk, unless the defect represent a minor, the apointment is for that I is so open that any man of ordinary prudence purpose only, and the guardian cannot compro- would discover it on casual observation.-Chi

« 上一頁繼續 »