Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1895-11-15
The Supreme Court Decides the City Of
Grafton Must Pay $3,7oo to
Mrs. Overton.
A Suit For Damages From the Run
away Of a Horse While
Driving Out.
Two Other Cases Decided by the
Court Which Will be Of
Interest.
Interesting Cases.

Interesting Cases.
Decisions in three more interesting
cases have been handed down by the
supreme court. One of the cases decid-
ed is of Mary Ouverson VS.. the city of
Grafton, similar to that of Chacey vs.
Fargo, which was decided a few days
ago. Mrs. Ouverson, the plaintiff was
driving along one of the streets of the
city of Grafton, when her horse took
fright at a threshing outfit which was
allowed to stand on the street, ran off,
and the plaintiff received injuries which
rendered her a cripple for life. She
brought suit against the city, and re-
ceived damages in a jury trial. The
city appealed from a denial of a motion
for a new trial. The supreme court
finds her entitled to damages, and
afirms the verdict of the lower court.
The decision holds, in brief, that when
a city negligently allows an obstruction
to stand in it's travelled streets, and in
juries result to any one therefrom, it is
not necessary to allege any actual con-
tact with such obstruction.
That a court cannot say as a matter
Of law that such an obstruction is not
calculated to frighten a horse of ordin-
AIRY g%entleness. This question is for the
jury.
That when the injury could not have
resulted but for the neglect of the city,
that neglect is the proxmiate cause of
the injury.
That when a horse of ordinary gentle
ness becomes frightened at such an
obstruction and becomes unmanage-
able, the city is liable for injuries result
ing therefrom.
That a traveller is not required to
forego travel on a street because of
such an obstruction, nor does he have
to prove extraordinary care in passing
such an obstruction. The burden of
proving contributory negligence rests
upon the city.
The court also holds that the ques-
ton as to whether a given object stand
ing upon a street is calculated to frighten
horses of ordinary gentleness is not a
question for expert testimony.
Another case, which will be of interest
to stockmen and ranchmen is that of
| WEIGH VS.. Barnes, from Cass county. A
livery man had a claim of $50 against a
mare, for feed and stabling, and while
the owner had the animal out of the
barn temporarily, to exercise her, an
other creditor of the owner attached the
horse. The liveryman brought replevin
against the sheriff, who seized the horse,
claiming his statutory lien for the
amount Of his bill for stabling. The
| sheriff held that the lien was lost by
allowing the owner to take the mare
temporarily out of the stable. The trial
court held that the liveryman was en-
| titled to the lien, and the supreme court
affirms, as follows:
The tlien given to a stable keeper by
Section 1886 Comp. Laws, is not lost even
as to an attaching creditor, because the
horse is temporarily in the possession of the
owner when it is levied on, who is usirg i. in
the usual manner, it being the purpose OF
the owner to return the horse to the stable
as soon as he finishes his temporary use of
it, the arrangement under which the horse
is being boarded being still in existence al
the time the levy is made.
The case of Stewart VS.. j. S. Parsons
and Louisa T. Parsons, appealed from
Richland county, was also decided. This
was an action to foreclose a real estate
mortgage given by Parsons and his wife
The foreclosure was by default, and aft.
erwards the defendants asked to have
the judgment vacated, they to be al:
lowed to come in and answer. The aft,
davit: of Louisa f. Parsons was that she
had not been served with a copy of the
summons and complaint, and that Of
her husband that the facts that he relied
upon as a defense never came to his
knowledge until after the judgment in
the case. The lower court denied both
motions, but the supreme court holds
that the motion of the wife must be
granted. hit affirms the order denvino