The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-05-06
CAN PROTECT ITSELF
COMPANY May CARRY AN INnEm
NIFTY POLICY TO COVER
ACCIDENTS.
NOT GUILTY. OF NEGLIGENCE
The Decision a 1so Of the District Court
In the Case sspf Ernest n. ManIey
sustained a'l's1.dhby the Supreme BENCH
Amor a. Administrators. VS..
sto'eeiseie Et Al. Sent Back for
New Trial,

Five decisions were handed down in
the supreme eauft4 yesterday written by
Chief Justice StaTt. In which the lower
court suffered sope,- reversal.
In the case OF Ernest r.. ManIey against
the Minneapolis Paint company, the
court gives a. decision in favor of the
employer. The plaintiff was injured while
In the employ Of the paint company. and
brought action to recover damages. The
evidence did not establish negligence on
the part of the corporation, and decis-
ion was filed in the Minneapolis district
court refusing. plaintiff relief asked for
The case was carried up by Manley.
whose plea was that the paint company
carried an indemnity policy insurfng it
against liability on account of injuries
to employees, and that this fact estab-
lshed negligence on the part of the cor
poration, The paint company Wins on
the appeal. The syllabus Is as follows:
Ernest r. Manley. appellant, VS.. The
minneapolis Paint Company, respondent.
Syllabus Upon the undisputed evil
dence In this case held that the defend
ant was not negligent In failing to fur
nish the plaintiff a safe place In which
to work. or in failing to warn and in
Struct him as to the safe and proper way
to executing the work.
z. The fact that the master holds an
Indemnity policy insuring him against
liability on account of injuries to his eni-
ployes by his negligence and requires the
company, to defend on action against
him on account of such injuries and it
does So, Is not evidence tending to show
an admission of negligence on the part
or the insured or insurer. Order affirmed
Start, G. j.
James Amor. as administrator Of the
estate N
spondent. VS.. George Stoeckele ct AL
defendants, J: HI. Davis. appellant.
Syllabus-l. AJprenise to pay note
after maturity by an indorser, or part
payment thereon by him. with full knowI-
edge of the laehes OF the holder in re-
spect to demand and notice Of non-pay-
ment constitutes a waiver of such laehes
2. Where 1t appears that no demand of
payment was In fact made the burden is
on the PLAINTIFF to show that the fndorser
nad knowledge of the laches when he
made the promise of payment
8. The testimony of a witness on
former trial may be shown by the steno-
grapher who took 1t. who may use his
original notes TO refresh his memory and
read the testimony therefrom In cases
where he cannot speak from memory 8
TO the facts, oE5from g. transcript of his
the non-productien of the original and
showing the correctness of the TRANSCRIPT.
put 1t Is error to permit him to read from
dalton therefor. Order reversed and a,
new trial granted Start
Other findings were: es ~.
Richard w. Hale and Henry w. Bal
Iard. as trustees Of the estate OF Alfred
W. Haven. respondents, VS. Derrick II.
Rressen ct al. defendants; David e. Hail
Investment Company. appellant. Order
affirmed.
IN Marshall & Illsley Bank. respondent, VS..
Elisha A. Child e. al, defendants: Elisha
A. Child, appellant Order affirmed.
w; ]. Foran. respondent. vs., Samuel I.
LAWN, appellant. Order affirmed