Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-06-22
COURT DECISIONS.
DlGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
vIRcINiAN-PlLOT.
notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People.
ANDREWS v. POPE.
Supreme Court OF North Carolina.



Supreme Court OF North Carolina.
May l. 1900.
WHEN THE HOLDER OF A NOTE
FAILED TO NOTIFY THE GUAR
ANTOR THAT THE MAKER RE-
FUSED PAYMENT, UNTIL Is
MONTHS AFTER 1T BECAME
DUE. THE MAKER HAVING BEEN
INSOLVDNT DURING THE WHOLE
TIME. THE GUARANTOR is NOT
RELEASED.
This was an action on a contract
guarantying the payment of certain
notes. From a Judgment for plaitin
the defendant appealed.
The court says:
The notes were Endorsed without re-
course. The special agreement was TO
the effect that, If the maker of the
notes should not pay them at maturity,
the defendant would. He preferred to
be q guarantor, rather than an .ndors-
er; The latter, under our law being a
surety, and as such liable to be sued
either with or without the principal.
The guaranty compelled the plaintiff to
do the unpleasant duty of pressing the
defendants debtor, Johnson. for the
payment of the notes. Demand was
made upon the maker of the notes at
their maturity. and we think that the
maker at that time denied his liability,
and refused to pay. and. If the maker
had been solvent, ii would have been
the duty Of the plaintiff TO have given
the defendant notice of Johnson's re-
fusal to pay the note But the maker
was insolvent, and continued so up to
the bringing of the suit. and the plain
tiff's failure 10 notify the defendant OF
Johnsons refusal TO pay has worked
him no harm or damage, and the de-
PENDANT cannot COmDlntn AfIirmpd
SAUNDERS v. CITY OF TT. MADI-
SON.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
April 10. 1900.
A CITY IS NOT LIABLE FOR INJU-
RIES CAUSED a PERSON BY THE
FRIGHTENING OF HER HORSE
BY EMPLOYEES OF IT'S FIRE DE-
PARTMENT.
The PLAINTIFF sued the city for per-
sonal injuries caused her by reason OF
negligence of employees OF the fire de-
partment. The petition alleged that
while driving along a street of the
city her horse was frightened by the
negligent, careless and wanton ringing
OF the bell of the fire apparatus by it's
employees, resulting in his running
away, throwing her from her vehicle
and seriously injuring her. A demurrer
TO the petition was sustained by the
lower court and plaintiff appealed.
The court says:
The question for solution is, IS de-
PENDANT liable for the negligent or
careless acts of its agents or servants
acting In the line of their duty in car
ing for the fire apparatus. The doc
trine of respondent superior is not ap-
plicable to the acts or negligence of
all agents and servants and servants
of municipal corporation. Such a
corporation, no doubt, has power to
may in some instances appoint the
agents who are to manage and care
for the same; but it is not, as a gen
eral rule. liable for the negligence or
carelessness of such agents. for the
reason that the service performed is
one in which 1t has no particular in
terest. and from which it derives no
special benefit in It's corporate capac-
ity. Such employees are not agents
and servants of the city. but act as
officers charged with Il public service.
for whose negligence no action will
lie against the city. Where the powers
conferred governmental in nature,
TIL. city cannot be made liable for ex-
ecution thereof. In the absence of ex-
press statnte. municipal corporations
are no more liable to actions for inju-
RIGS occasioned by reason Of negligence
in using or keeping in repair fire APP
paratus owned by them, than in the
case of public buildings.
The demurrer was properly sustained,
and the Judgment is affirmed.