Brookings County sentinel. (Brookings, Dakota [S.D.]) 1882-1890, 1882-06-01

1882.
RECENT LEGAL DECISIONS.
tFrom Bradstreet's Journsll
WHEN person contracts TO do thing
which needs not be done by him In per-
son, his sickness cannot be set up as
an excuse for any failure 10 carry out
his part Of the contract, in the opinion
Of the supreme court Of Pennsylvania,
in Smith, administrative, vs.. Penn Mu-
tual Insurance Company, decided on
March 20.
IT cannot be shown by the verbal
statements of q testatoi that his will was
to be imperative, and not to be proved
in the event OF certain contingency
happening before his death. A will can
not be revoked by parol, in the opinion
of the Maryland court OF appeals, in
Sewen vs.. Slingluff, decided in Febru-
ary.
A vENDER of goods who has been de-
frauded by fraudulent representations
which induced him to part with them
for less than their value, may recover
the price of the property, less the sum
he has received, in an action brought for
the damages he has suffered, without
returning the amount he has already
received, in the opinion Of the su-
preme court Of Iowa, in Clews VS.. Traer,
decided in December.
NATIONAL banks in California are al.
lowed to charge and receive such rates
OF interest as may be agreed upon, as
they may under section 20 of the nation
al banking act "charge on any loans in
terest at tue rate allowed by the state or
territory where the banks are located,
and no more" the civil code Of Califor-
mia, section 1913, providing "that par
ties may agree in writing for the pay
ment OF any rate of interest, and it shall
be allowed according to the terms of
agreement, until the entry of Judgment"
| in the opinion of the supreme court OF
California, in Kinds vs.. Marmolejo, de-
cided in March.
A, WHO was in the employment of
b, bargained with him for the purchase
OF horse which b owned and kept on
Lis farm, the price TO be paid from
wages to be earned by A. The horse re-
mained on the farm under the care of A,
who paid for his forage and who claimed
ownership of the animal. An attach
ment against b was levied on the horse,
and A brought an action TO recover him
rs his property, Hull VS.. Sigsworth. in
January the supreme court of errors of
| ont ..I fv nft t1a a.
tachiDg creditor. Judge Pardee, in the
opinion, said: "There Was no visible
change in the possession of the horse,
aud The declarations Of Ownership made
by A, including those made at the time
of the attachment, must go for nothing,
because the apparently unchanged owner
ship by B was a constant denial of their
truth, aud, as a matter of law, bore them
down.
THE authorities of a city imposed a
| fine upon A for violation of q city or
dinance in refusing to fill up certain
sinks on his property after they were de-
ciared to be nuIsances, and recovered O
| judgment for the amount of the fine. A
appealed in this case-The Mayor, ETC.,
Of Monroe VS.. Gerspach-and the su-
preme court Of Louisiana, in June, af-
tirmed the judgment. Judge Levy, in
the opinion, said: We think the right
exists in the council of municipal cor
poration to determine what in its nature
and use it deems a nuisance, and to di-
rect its removal or discontinuance, un-
der the penalties which it il by legisla-
tive authority authorized to impose or
| ,,,A ,,t 30 hat, =,
portion Of police authority necessarily
vested in the CORPORATIONS of all popu-
lous towns. The question of nuisance
or no nuisance is always a question of
fact in relation to which the opinion OF
individuals will necessarily differ. 1t
therefore becomes necessary in all popu-
lous towns to regulate such matters by
police ordinances; and public policy re-
quires that the corporation OF the place
should not be disturbed in the ex-
ercise Of their powers unless they have
clearly transcribed their authority.
A PERSON was injured on boat from
an accident, and the captain took him
for treatment TO the family physician,
but he was absent, and then he took him
to the Office Of another physician who
was also absent. He left him, however,
at the latter's Office with instructions to
have every necessary attention given to
him, and to have him ready to return in
the boat on that day. The physician
sued the captain Cor his services, Berry
VS.. Pusey, and recovered. The captain
appealed, and the Kentucky court Of ap.
peals, in March, affirmed the judgment.
Judge Prior, in the opinion, said: The
person injured occupied no such rels-
ton by blood or employment to the cap
tain as would create an implied promise
to pay, but he brought him to the sur
geon to have his wound examined and
dressed by him, and this wound had been
caused by some negligence Of those in
charge OF the boat. Having carried the
young man to the Office q the surgeon,
the captain left instruct6ns to have him
attended TO SO that he might return on
the evening boat. This was done, and
the surgeon should be paid, and upon
the facts of this case the jury had the
right to say that the employment was
made by the captain.
MnLERs who were engaged in manu-
I r. a n