The Penn's Grove record., 1883-09-01

Minnesota, where du diHTultliNt Who
had. Judge Berry, in the opinion,
said First, the validity of this mort
gage is not affected by the fact that
the condition misrepresents the obliga-
ton or reliability in fact secured or intend
ed to be secured by it. The considera-
ton wa valuable, and the instrument
was enacted in good faith. The ques-
ton is: Was the mortgage made with
intent to hinder, delay " defraud the
mortgageor's creditors ? If it was not,
then the form of its condition is not of
decisive Importance. The real consider
alton may always be shown to repel an
attack by creditors, and if, upon inves-
| tigation, aproper consideration and law
full intent are found the mortgage will
/ stand. (2) AS to the priority Of this
mortgage parol proof vas properly given
~ to show that A, who fled the three
mortgages, was the agent of all of the
mortgages I; ~ that, in fact, this
mortgage was the first executed, and,
| therefore, took priority of Others"
NEGLIGENCE ALIGHTING FROM
| MOVING TRAINs.-A passenger step
| ped from a train when it was in the
station slowing up but not stopped, and
was thrown down and injured by a sud-
den jerking of the train. He sued the
company for damages and recovered a
judgment. The company had defended
on the ground that alighting from a
| train in motion was such negligence in
itself that 40 action would lie for dam
ages. On an appeal of the case-Gal-
weston, Houston and San Antonio Rail-
road Company VS.. Smith-tothe Supreme
Court of Texas, the judgment was af-
frmed. Judge Watts, in the opinion,
said sit is claimed that alighting
from a train in motion is such negli-
! gence as to preclude a recovery, what
ever the circumstances. This may be
| true, and no doubt is, when the COM
| pany is not in fault and the train has
considerable speed but it is not neces-
sarily true when there is a question of
comparative negligence. A train might
be barely in motion, moving SO slowly
that getting off would be attended with
no danger whatever. The question of
| negligence, therefore, was a question
for the jury, and they have found for
the plaintiff under proper instructions.
La passenger takes no more risk by
alighting than ordinarily prudent men
take under like circumstances he is not
precluded from recovering for an injury
suffered in consequence of the com
pany's negligence"
TELEGRAPH CoMPANY--CLAIM FOR
| DAMAGEs--TIME TO BRING ACTION
An action was brought to recover dam
ages against a telegraph company for
negligence in Transmitting the dispatch
50 that it was not promptly deliver
ed. The mistake was in the transmits
sion of the name, "Hiram" being sent
Herman" On the telegraph blank
used by the sender it was stated as the
contract between the parties ''that no
claim for damages shall be valid unless
presented in writing within twenty
days from sending the message" No
claim for damages was made unit l24
days after the sending of the message.
The trial Court decided in favor of the
company, and the plaintiff carried the
case--lIerman VS.. Western Union Tele-
graph Company-to the Supreme Court
of Wisconsin, where the judgment was
affirmed. Judge Orion, in the opinion,
seid This condition as to making a
demand for damages in a stipulated
time is valid. Such a condition has
been held obligatory in insurance,
freight and other contracts, and in leg
islation where damages have resulted
from accident or negligence, and in
such cases the principle is undisputed.
But it is clearly not unreasonable that
a telegraph company should require no.
tice of claims for its defaults within a
reasonable time before being held to
answer for the alleged default. From
the nature Of its business this may be
essential to its protection against I'M
founded claims. Another reason is
found in the multitude of messages
transmitted, requiring a speedy know
ledge of claims, to enable the company
to keep an account of its transactions
before, by reasol of their great number
they cease to be within recollection OF
control. 1t may be added that this
was a night message and at oLe-half
rates, because of its not requiring
repetition, and, ON account of It's liabil-
ity to mistake, error or delay and of the
common uncertainty and great labor
of night work, the company should not
be held unless there is the clearest IL
ability. "-Reported for Phila. Record.
The New Chinese Corvette.