The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1883-11-29
COMMERCIAL LAW.
Brief DIgests Of Late Desisious.
Compiled Specially for the st. Louis CONNER.
cfal Gazettel
VENDOR AND PURCHASER

VENDOR AND PURCHASER.
A purchaser ordered goods, purchas-
I'd from w. & Co., to be sent by rail to
g., and at the same time unknown to
vendors) instructed NJ, S. & Co. to ship
the goods on their arrival at G. to K.
Some delay occurred at G. owing to
there being no ship ready to take the
goods, and they were warehoused by
The railway company at NJ, S. & Co. s
risk. While there they were stopped by
the vendors. Held that as between the
vendors and vendee, the right to stop
the goods was at an end when the goods
had arrived at e. and when the railway
company no longer held the goods as
carriers. For the goods were then in
the constructive possession of the ven-
dee, the defendants, NJ, S. & Co., being
the agents appointed by the vendee to
receive and forward the goods upon the
fresh journey to R.-Kendall VS.. Mar
shall, stevens & Co., and Ward & Co.,
English Court of Appeals.
INSURANCE AND COMMON CARRIER.
In suit to recover from the insur-
ance company the value of goods lost
on a railroad, the policy stipulated that
the insurer should be subrogated to all
claims against the transporter. The bill
of lading provided that the carrier
should have the benefit of any insur-
ance on the goods. Held that carrier,
though he may not escape liability,
may insure himself against it, and may
also contract for the benefit of the in
surance made by the shipper. Also,
] hot -, al e L.
prevented the shipper from subrogating
| the insurer to his claims according to
the policy, and there could be no recov-
cry from the NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS., Mccall
& Co. VS.. the Mech. and Traders ms.
Co., United States Circuit Court for
Maryland.
VOLUNTARY DEED.
A voluntary deed from a son who's.
habits were Incorporate to his father,
who was in affiuent circumstance
and which contained no power
of revocation and no proper pro-
vision for the wife and child of the
grantor, and which was executed with.
out independent advice of counsel rep
resenting the grantor alone, was SET
aside by the court. There was an alb.
sence of any proof by the grantees that
it was the intelligent, deliberate and
free act of grantor, done of his own de.
sire and accord, and no proof that the
transaction was right. -Matter of Mis-.
keys Appeal, Supreme Court of Penn
| sylvania.
SPEED OF TRAINS.
A railway company may run its trains
nj any rate of speed it chooses. so that
when taken in connection with the char
acter of the road, its grades, curves, etc,
and the various other questions affect.
ing the question of safety, it does not
increase the ordinary risks and dangers
incident to travel by rail. So long as
the increased speed of trains adds moth.
ing to the dangers and risks of the trav.
cling public, the courts have no ri ght to
! interpose. Subject to this limitation,
railway companies have the right to fix
the rate of speed of their trains as they
think best.-Indiana, Bloomington u
Western Railroad Company VS.. Hall.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
MUNICIPAL LIABILITY.
The plaintiff, while walking along a
highway upon a dark night, turned
aside for the purpose of taking foot.
path which led through private prop.
erty, and, by reason OF n miscalculation
as to his position, fell over the un.
guarded edge of culvert and sustained
severe injury thereby. 1t was in evi,
dence that he was familiar with the con-
| dition of the place, having habitually
| travelled that way for about fifteen
years: and that, if he had not attempted
to leave. the street, the accident would
not have occurred. He'll that the mu.
nicipality was not liable.-Hill VS.. City
OF Scranton, Supreme Court of Penn
sylvania.
OWNERSHIP OF INVENTION.
The general rule is that when a me
chanic, laboring for an employer in
valuable improvement, the invention
is the property of the inventor and not
of the employer. 1t may be that when
an employer hires man of supposed
inventive mind TO invent for the EN-
ployer an Improvement in given ma
chine, under special contract that the
employer shall own the invention when
made, the invention, if so made, would
in equity become the property of the
employer.-Joliet Manufacturing Com.
paDy VS.. Dice, Supreme Court of Hi
noiS.
TENDER.
Where party contracts to deliver
personal property at a given time and
place, and is willing to comply with
the terms Of his contract at the contract
time and place agreed upon, and so no.
titles the other party to the contract,
who then and there declares that the
property if rendered would not be &C.
copied by reason of an alleged defect
therein, such party may maintain an
action for breach of the contract with
out actual tender of the property as re-
quired by the terms of the contract
Tullos VS.. Rogers, Supreme Court Of
Ohio.
TAXATION AND CORPORATION.
i corporation was formed to pur.
chase. ETC., wheat and other cereals fol-
distribution among its members. The
cereals were purchased by a genera,
agent appointed by q board of directors,
and with money furnished by the mem.
bers. When purchased from time tG
time, it was distributed in certain por.
tons according to the bylaws. Held,
that the wheat when purchased was the
property of the corporation, and taxable
as such. State VS.. Minneapolis Millers'
Association, Supreme Court of Mime
sofa.
ADMINISTRATIONS.
Where the bank account of an admin
istrator shows balance due him, and
there is nothing to show whether the
Lol l,lI,r1e..l sor..-;<.c,s