The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1883-11-10
NUMBER is.
COMMERCIAL Law.
nrioE Digeats Of Late Decislenz.
Compiled Specially for the 81. Louis CONNER.
ciai Gaxette.l
MINE WORKED BY CONTRACTORS
BILITY FOR ACCIDENT.

MINE WORKED BY coNTRAcT0sss--s-IA
BILITY FOR ACCIDENT.
A miner was killed by the falling Of
an iron mine, the necessary supports
not having been put In place, aud his
administrators sued the owner Of the
property for damages. The mine was
worked by contractors under an agree
ment with the company by which il was
expressly stipulated that, in view of tho
dangers of mining in that vicinity, the
contractors and not the owner should
be liable for any injuries TO the work
men. The mine was In safe condition
when the contractors took possession OF
1t, but they conducted the work negli-
gently In putting up supports for the
roof, which fell In consequences. The
lease of the mine provided that the
owner should send its superintendent,
without charge, to superintend, advise
and direct the precautions to be taken
70 make the mine safe for working, but
no such supervision was exercised Tho
court said; II the mine was In an un-
safe condition when II was handed over
TO the contractors and this unsafe con-
dition was known to the company, and
II, In consequence Of that condition, Il
miner was brought therein in ignorance
Of Il and was killed, the company should
be held responsible. Every man who
expressly or by implication invites
others TO come upon his premises as
sumes to all who accept the invitation
the duty TO warn them Of any dangerin
coming which he knows Of, and Of
which they were not aware. So long as
this mine was worked under tho CON
tract, all responsibility for the care and
safety OF the men was upon the con-
tractors alone. The manner of super
visIng the cautionary steps, though neg
lected, worked no injury to the plain
tiff. The company owed him no duty,
and legal wrongs spring only from the
the neglect Of legal duties. -Samuelson
vs.. the Cleveland Iron Mining Com
pany, Supreme Court Michigan.
VALIDITY OF NorE--RATIFIcAmoN
A promlssory note was made In Nc
Draska, but was payable In New York.
In suit upon Il the defense was set up
Of usury, on the ground that Il was
q New York note, and the interest was
greater than was allowed there. Also,
that the rate was more than was per-
mitted In Nebraska. Held |. This
note having been made In Nebraska,
though payable In New York, was q
contract OF Nebraska. 2. The rate OF
interest was greater than the statutory
rate in Nebraska, and the plaintiff can
not recover any interest. by reason Of
tho statute. He insists that he Is not
to be bound by the acts of his agent
who took this usury, but the contract
made by the agent must be adopted IN
whole, and as the principal has
affirmed the contract generally, he must
be held TO have adopted oil the instru-
mentality employed by his agent to
bring Il TO q contamination ---,JOslin VS..
Miller, Supreme Court Of Nebraska.
CONSTRUCTION OF NOTE.
Where the makcr of note promises to
pay the sum mentioned In 1t in twelve or
within twelve months after It's date, with
interest from date, payable annually, II
Is necessary, in order to give the words
payable annually any force and effect
to construe the promise as promise to
pay the interest annually until the note
Is fully paid, and on note SO drawn the
interest will continue TO be payable an
nually after as well as before maturity.
But where the promise Is to pay more
than twelve months after date, with in
terest from date payable annually no
such necessity arises, and therefore tho
interest does not continue to be payable
annually after maturity. -Westlield vs..
Westiield etal .-Supreme Court Of South
Carolina
PROPERTY OF WIFE.
The Judgment creditors of an insol-
vent debtor sought TO take property
whi,h his wife had purchased, but
which he had paid for out OF his earn
ings which by law were exempt FROM
execution, and the trial court gave them
a Judgment. On appeal this was rd
versed, the court saying The use
the husband Of his personal earninga
payment for property purchased bws
wife amounts, in legal contemplaz,
to gift of said property to his wifAs
these earnings were exempt froup
cutiOn at the time that they VIZ ems
ployed In the acquisition of the perry
in controversy, voluntary giN sucn
earnings was no fraud upon creu-
itors Of the husband. -Robb brewer'
Supreme Court of Iowa.
AIIOhNEI AND CIF
The relation Of attorveyand ciicns
gives rise to great confdece anu .ne
attorney Is supposed to kVe power -
strongly influence his cliet; ana % gan
by his good nature and county, hnu Y
obtain undue advantags and gratultles.
Hence the law oftegaeciafes transae-
tons between them id which betweeR
other persons wouldOe unobjectionable.
Unless The transction is fair, it IS
deemed a constrvtive fraud. II an ar
torney frauduley1y claims the right
retain out Of ne money Of his client
larger sum thu the jury find to be JUST
he forfeits nj claim to any compensa
ton. = Shoepaker vs.. Stiles, supreme
Court of Pennsylvania.
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.
A promissory note payable on q
mand OF IN three years from eatec.
with interest at q ceftain rate sanKlnE
said term for such further time %lN
principal SUM or any part tAe.s1k
shall remein unnald, y Is moi neEQlsAni5tk
- t|otta< -zI1IH|HF'N