The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-01-05
NEW SUITS FILED.
Note. of recent Opinions.

A libelous publication about a deceased
person is held, in Bradt VS.. New Nonpareil
Company Qowa), As l.. r. A. 6Sl, to give the
mother Of the deceased the right Of action.
The taxation of a city for its franchise is
upheld in Newport VS.. Com. (Kyo, 45 l.. r.
A. SIS, in case of a franchise to operate
water works. as it is held that the city in
respect to them occupies the position OF a
private corporation.
Employees working more than eight hours
per day in violation Of a statute are held,
in Short VS.. Bullion, Beck & G. Min. Co.
Otah), As l.. r. A. 603, to have no right OF
action for the extra services, either on the
contract or on a Quantum meruit.
The right of corporation to dispose of
its property by majority vote, against
the protest Of a minority stockholder, Is
sutained in Phillips VS.. Providence Steam
Engine Company OR. ID, As l.. II. A. $780,
when there is no unfairness oppression or
fraud, and the company Is unable to go on
with its busienss.
A statement in a recommendation Of a
former employee that, like many others. he
left our service during the strike" Ii neld,
In Kansas City, NJ. & B. Railroad Com
not to be libelous or actionable per Sc 50 as
to constitute a cause OF action without
special damages.
A passenger alighting from a train and
proceeding at once toward the station is
VS.. Goodlin On. J.), IS L. r. A. GIL, to be not
necessarily chargeable. as matter of law,
with the duty to look and listen for trains
before stepping on the track which he must
cross to reach the station.
The right of an Illinois assignee for cred
itors to bring an action against all the do
nestle shareholders of an Illinois corpora
ton is sustained, in Stoddard VS.. Lum On.
W, As L. r. A. 551. on the ground that the
cause of action is on contract and Is based
on the principles Of the common law, in
stead of the statutory provisions In Illinois.
The owner of premises dangerous to
trespassers is held, in Cooper VS.. Overton
(Tenn.), As L. r. A. 591. to have no liability
for injuries to trespassers. even II they are
children, unless they are induced to enter
the premises by something unusual and at
tractive placed upon 1t by the owner OF
| with his knowledge and permitted 20 re-
main there.
The right to plead self-defense for homi.
| eide in difficulty which the accused him.
| self provoked is denied In Foutch VS.. State
| (Tenn.), As L. r. A. 687, only when the diff
| ficulty was provoked with intent to kill the
| adversary or do him great bodily harm. OF
| to afford pretext for wreaking malice
upon him. With this case is an elaborate
note on self-defense set up by accused who
began the conflict.
| Nitroglycerin being a substance highly
| explosive and dangerous, IT Is held, In
| Bradford Glycerin Company VS.. st. Mary's
| Wooden Manufacturing Company tOhio), A
| l.. r. A. COS, that any one who stores II or
/ his own premises Is uaDle TOT injuries
/ caused to surrounding property by Its ex
| ploding, even IL he does not violate any
| provision of the law regulating me storage
and is not chargeable with any negligence
Implied authority of partner to make
| accommodation Endorsements in the name
| of his firm is held, in Bank OF Monogahels
| Valley VS.. Weston IN. W, As L. r. A 547
/ to be created where Cor about ten years tn,
| other members Of the firm knew that h,
| was using the firm name for the accommo
dation of his friends and took no effectiv.
| steps to prevent Ii, though often remon
| strating with him in private and accepting
his promise to stop the practice.