Morris tribune., 1897-05-12
SUPREME COURT
Some Important Decisions OF In
terest to this District.
Judge 6. i. Brown Affirmed in
Each Case.


decisions of considerable import tx
this district and especially to Morris
Morris being the home of Judge G
L. Brown it is only natural that the
people here take deep interest II
every appeal taken, and are always
gratifed in hearing of the lower court
being sustained In fact they have
very rare opportunities of being other
wise, even if their desires we're SO in.
clined, as he scarcely, if ever, has q
decision reversed, During his term
as judge he has made record to be
envied, having the least number Of
decisions reversed of any judge in
the state,
At the fall term of the supreme
court there were seven appeals from
this district and in every case the
lower court was affirmed. At this
springs. term there are sveral eases
pending, of which three have been
heard from and all three affirmed.
The first of these was the case of the
First National Bank of Whitewater
VS.. j. O,,Estenson; HI. C. Berry; Geo.
E. Darling, attorneys. The supreme
1890 .,,a+a;n<>J :, doo;c;o,o IF fha die
trict court Of this county to the effect
that the plaintiffs attorney may serve
a summons in the action.
The second case was from Grant
A. F. Huber vs.. Gustaf K.
johnson; L. g. Cannon; c. Yelling
ton, attorneys. The decision is
against that class of people who
make a business of bringing personal
injury suits, Gustaf K. johnson had
a claim against railroad company
for unliquidated damages, and entered
into a contract with A. F. Huber, by
which the latter was to employ
an attorney and prosecute the case
wholly at his own cost. AS compen-
sation for his services Huber was to
have an amount equal to one-half of
what was collected, but if nothing
was collected he was not to charge
for his services. Plaintiff
might cancel and annul the contract
whenever he became satisfied that the
claim was not valid for sufficient
sum to warrant his proceeding
further. The contract further pro
vides that the defendant should not
settle the claim without plaintiffs
written consent, and if he did he was
to pay the plaintiff S75. Johnson did
settle the claim without Huber's con-
sent. It is held, in an action to re-
cover the SIS stipulated for, that the
contract was against public policy and
void. The order is affirmed,
The third case was tried here a
rear ago and attracted considerable
attention. 1t was the case of Ole A.
Oleson VS.. the Great Northesn rail-
way, wherein the jury granted the
plaintiff $500 for injuries received
= ~. b -.
while loading coal into a locomotive
ender Several wild freight cars
pumped the tender and threw him to-
he ground. The court held that the
allegation was sustained by proof
hat the defendant negligently omitted
o do an act from which results fol-
owed. The court also held that
equest to instruct the jury that it
could not infer negligence from the
mere happening of the accident in
his case, was rightly refused as mis-
eadings, for the reason that the
lccident was Of such nature as to
aise, in connection with the other
violence, an inference. of negligence.
Spooner & Flaherty; G. Wellington,
attorneys.
The affirming of the shove decis-
ions certainly reflects great credit
N the judge of this district, Hon.
J. L.. Brown.