The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1883-10-05
COMMERCIAL LAW.

COMMERCIAL Law.
| -
| Brief Digests Of Late Decisions.
cial Gazette.l
NINE WORKED BY CONTRACTORs-LIA-
4 BILITY FOR ACCIDENT.
A miner was killed by the falling of
IN iron mine, the necessary supports
not having been put in place, and 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 it was
expressly stipulated that, in view of the
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
it, but they conducted the work negli-
gently in putting up supports for tho
roof, which fell in consequence. Tho
lease of the mine provided that the
owner should send its superintendent,
without charge, to superintend, advise
and direct the precautions to be taken
to make the mine safe for working, but
no such supervision was exercised. The
court said: II the mine was in an I'M
safe condition when it was handed over
to the contractors and this unsafe con-
dition was known to the company, and
if, in consequence of that condition, a
miner was brought therein in ignorance
of it 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 danger in
coming which he knows of, and of
which they were not aware. So long as
this mine was worked under the 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.
IS. the Cleveland Iron Mining Com
pany, Supreme Court Michigan.
VALIDITY OF NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
4 promissory note was made in Ne
braska, but was payable in New York.
In suit upon it the defense was set up
of usury, on the ground that it was
New York note, and the interest was
greater than was allowed there. Also,
that the rate was more than was per-
mittcd in Nebraska. Held |. This
note having been made in Nebraska,
though payable in New York, was a
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
the 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 as
whole, and as the principal has
affirmed the contract generally. he must
be held to have adopted all the instru-
mentality employed by his agent to
bring it to a consummation. vs..
Miller, Supreme Court of Nebraska.
CONSTRUCTION OF NOTE.
Where the maker of a note promises to
pay the sum mentioned in it in twelve or
within twelve months after its date. "with
interest from date, payable annually" it
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 the
interest does not continue to be payable
annually after maturity.-Westfield vs..
Westfield ct al.-Supreme Court of South
Carolina.
PROPERTY OF WIFE.
The Judgment creditors of an insol-
vent debtor sought to take property
which 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
Judgment. On appeal this was re-
versed, the court saying: The use by
the husband of his personal earnings in
payment for property purchased by his
wife amounts, in legal contemplation,
to a gift of said property to his wife. As
these earnings were exempt from exc
cution at. the time that they were en-
ployed in the acquisition of the property
in controversy, a voluntary gift of such
earnings was no fraud upon the cred
itors of the husband.-Robb VS.. Brewer,
Supreme Court of Iowa.
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.
The relation of attorney and client
gives rise to great confidence and the
attorney is supposed t. have power to
strongly influence his client. and to gain
BY his good nature and credulity, and to
obtain undue advantages and gratuities.
Hence the law often declares transact
tons between them void which between
other persons would be unObjectionable.
Unless the transaction is fair, it is
deemed constructive fraud. If an at
torney fraudulently claims the right to
retain out of the money of his client a
larger sum than the jury find to be just,
he forfeits all claim to any compensa-
ion.-Shoemaker VS.. Stiles, Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania
SALE TO AGENT.
If a vendor, with full knowledge that
the sale was made to 4 husband as agent
for his wife and for her benefit, elected
to give exclusive credit to the husband
as agent, he could not afterward re-
cover from the wife as principal. But
if the vendor was ignorant of the fact
that he was dealing with the agent of
another, and that the latter received the