The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-10-06
Leads Carolina Daes i'm Newsstand Circulation

-IodoId p9Se5lIom &c uo!ss9ssod IoI uoEl
ty by reason Of the wrongful seizure of
the property.
After defence has been made to an ac-
ton the failure to make demand before
suit brought is not fatal.
State Hospital VS.. Fountain, appellant.
(From Edgecombe). Error
State Hospitals-Ch foo Patients
Recovery.
Patients at the State Hospital for the
Insanse who are able to pay are not en-
titled to treatment free of charge and
the State is not bound by a statement Of
the Superintendent to the Guardian of a
patient, that all patients were entitled
to free admission.
In an action by the Superintendent OF
State Hospital against the guardian OF
an insane person to recover for expenses
incurred by his ward as a patient in
the institution, the recovery is limited,
by virtue of Section 1856 of The Code to
the expenses incureedlu N. NJ. NJ. NJ.
the expenses incurred three years prior
to the bringing of the action.
s. Fl. Lane vs.. r. B. Raney, appellant.
(From Craven.) Error
Insurance-Local Agents-Commissions
A local insurance agent who is authoriz-
ed to create and discontinue agencies,
cannot bind his principal (the general
agent by a promise to another local
agent in reference to a division of COM
mission between the two local agents,
when the. rules Of the general agent
which the local agents had agreed to OBJ
serve, required that written notice OF a
claim for division OF commissions should
be filed with the application for insur-
ance.
w. z. Barden ct al VS.. W. j. Pugh, Admir-,
appellant (F'rom Sampson.) Appeal dis
missed.
Appeal-Servce of Notice Upon Disin-
terested Party.
Where an action upon a note was i'm
properly brought in the name Of the ORR
ginal payee, to the use of one to whom
he had assigned the note and Judgment
was rendered IN favor OF the assignee,
the payee apparently having no interest
in the suit, notice of appeal only TO the
disinterested party plaintiff and not TO
the party in whose favor Judgment was
rendered is nudity and the appeal will
be dismissed
Sampson Weeks VS.. /. McPhail ct al, pc
titioners. From Sampson).
Petition to Rehear-Est Suit.
in partition proceeding, enormously con-
STRUNG devise and adjudging that the
parties are not tenants in common and
that the petition be dismissed" works
an estoppel when not appealed fro u and
is not a non-suit. Strsuss VS.. ards
ley, 70 n. c., 50, distinguished
party to a subsequent proceeding is
not estopped from introducing the will
which was enormously construed in the
partition proceeding for the purpose OF
showing that the matter at issue has
been adjudicatcd in the former proceed
ing
Partition proceeding being equitable in
it nature, all parties thereto are estoppcd
by the decree therein.
Estoppel need not be pleaded in ac-
tions of ejectment. Wilkins VS. Suttle,
ia N. C. $50, distinguished.
A. Mitchell. appellant VS. j. F. Baker
(From Lenoir)
acknowledgements to
Charge as Given.
mover for certiorari must negative
laches.
The only exception to the rule that an
exception to the charge as given" is
too general IS where the charge involves
bit one proposition of law
Gowan. (From Pitt). Affirmed.
Draining Swamp Lands-Natural Water
Courses.
A land owner in draining his land, may
increase and accelerate the stream of
natural water course, but he cannot di-
vert the stream, and Is not liable for
! damages from overflow upon the land
of an adjacent owner caused only by an
increase in the volume Of the natural
water course and not by its diversion.
CHAPTER 80 of The Code applies only to
artificial outlets made over the land of
another to reach natural water course,
and not to artificial outlets made by one
to reach a natural water course upon his
own land.
j. w. Edwards, Admir- appellant VS.. A.
c. l.. Railroad Co. (From WILSON,.
Error
Railway Crossing -Negligence--Con
lictipg Charges.
In an action to recover of a railroad
company for killing plaintiffs intestate
at street crossing, the question whether,
if the street had remained as it was be-
fore the construction of the railroad,
persons upon the street could not have
more readily seen an approaching train,
was properly ruled out.
Where there are conflicting instructions
upon material points a new trial will be
granted.
An instruction that if the jury should
find that the train when it killed de-
ceased, was running at greater speed
than was prescribed by the town ordn-
ance, and should find that il il had not
been running at such speed the injury
would not have occurred, then defend
ant was guilt" negligence is correct
il that it assumes the requisites of an
affirmative finding Of the issue to be that
defendant was negligent and that the neg
ligence must have contributed to the in
jury, but is incorrect in that it restricts
the consideration of the excessive speed
to the actual point of the injury.
Upon the issue WAS intestate killed
by the negligence of defendant? the
jury were instructed that il they found
that the train approached the crossing
without sounding the whistle and without
ringing the bell and killed ntestate, then
defendant was guilty of negligence: and
were again instructed that the rate Of
| speed at which the train was running
! would not be negligence or evidence OF