The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-04-06
Supreme Court Decisions.

ray W. Long. New trial. Nile o0l'"iS
Estate.
Where the marriage took place since
1868, if the wife's separate estate goes
into the hands of her husband and ne IN
vests it in land. taking title in ms own
name, in the absence of any agreement
to the contrary trust results IN IaVor
of the wife. Ross VS.. Hendrix, ITO n. =.
405.
Dosh VS.. Lumber Co. No error-Entry
and Grant
State grant of vacant lands lying IN
a county where the entry laws apply,
cannot be attacked collateraly for fraud
or mistake in procuring the grant. Rey-
nolds VS.. Find. 2 N c. 100.
Stanmire VS.. Powell. So n. c., 312 and
Lovingood VS.. Burgess, A N. c. 4O7, dis
tinguished
Hunter VS.. Randolph. New trial. Vendor
and Vendee-Contract
Where vender delivers goods to
comon carrier consigned to the vendee,
title and possession vest in the vendee-
the carrier becoming the agent of the
vendee: Is N. c. 313; So N. G. 429, 81 n
G. 7A3.
Where an order for goods is accepted
by the vender the contract is complete
without further notice to the vendee; and
the contract on the part of the vender is
fully performed when he delivers the
goods for shipment in good condition to
the proper carrier.
A delivery of the goods by the vender
to a proper carrier is of the same legal
effect as a delivery to the vendee; and
he at riy1or or
depot of the carrier, in the town where
the vendee resides, are destroyed by fire,
the vender may recover the price of tn
goods from the vendee. This rule is not
affected by the fact that the vendor fail
ed to send the vendee a bill of lading
for the goods and, for that reason the
carrier would not deliver the goods TO
the vendee.
Barrett VS.. McCrummen. Error. Part
nershiD-TOrts.
!. A partnership is not liable in it's social
character for torts not committed in the
course of the partnership business, I'M
| less the torts are assented to or accept
ed as the acts of the partnership.
Where a partnership has been sued for
damages for the destruction of property
| by fire alleged to have been kindled by
| defendants in their woods, and by them
negligently permitted to spread to the
| property of the plaintiff, the trial judge
committed no error in charging the jury
| that no judgment could be had against the
! individual members of the partnership,
| but that if the negligent act was by one
of the partners, with the knowledge OF
| the others. who caused or procured the
act there must be an affirmative finding
/ of the issues. Ibid defendants set fire to
certain woods as alleged, and did de-
| PENDANTS negligently permit the fire to
! spread to and burn the property of the
plaintiff" Notwithstanding the fire was
not set cut as an act within the scope OF
/ the partnership business.
There was no sufficient evidence. in
this case that PLAINTIFFS property was de-
I stroyed by negligence of either of defen-
dants while acting within the scape of
| the partnership business, and the court
committed error in falling to so charge
the jury.
Wright vs. Southern Railway Co. At
firmed. Fellow Servant.
The fellow servant" doctrine, as APP
piled to railroad companies, extended only
to those things happening in the opera
ton Of the road. In such cases 1T is the
duty of the master to furnish proper ap-
pliances and a safe road-bed. The COM
pany cannot be heard to say that it is
not responsible for defective road-bed or
dangerous engines and cars, because 1t
furnished good iron and cross-ties and
other material and the road-bed was I'M
safe by reason of the negligence OF its
employees (This case. 123 n c., $50 and
122 N. c. 959, affairmed.)
Fleming VS.. Southern Railway Co. At
firmed. Defendants AppeaD. Non
Suit. New Action.
| Where . non-suit is taken with or
without the consent of the defendant, the
plaintiff may bring q new action within
one year thereafter.
And where the complaint averred that
| a previous action, which had been brought
by plaintiff against defendant for $29,0JO,
had been removed into the Federal court,
and the plaintiff, with consent of defend
ants attorney, at the following term OF
court, agreed to take a Eon-suit in the
Federal court, provided it should simply
terminate the action for $4,000, and that
plaintiff might then bring an action III
the State court anew for two thousand
dollars, the 1eLSuCaHL : uSutuIlel " ny
| action brought anew IN the Superior
court was properly overruled.
Carson VS.. Norfolk and Car r. R. Co.
No error Exception TO Charge 'as
Given" Statute of Limitations. Dam
ages from Flooding Land.
An exception THAT the court erred IN
the instructions as given" is excluded
from consideration under Rule q.
Chapter 152 of the Acts OF 1893. as
amended by Chapter 234 of the Acts OF
1896 is construed to mean that the rea-
sonable time given for the commencement
of an action not barred, shall be the nal-
ance of the time unexpired, according 10
the law as it stood when the amendatory
act passed. provided it shall never eX-
coed the time allowed by the new stat
ute Culbreth VS.. Downing, III ~ Z. ZVo.
In an action to recover permanent dam
ages of railroad company caused Dy us
removing a dam and flooding plalntl1
land, evidence as to the value OF the
land before and since the road was con-
structed, is nadmissible.
The trial Judge properly held that tne
measure of damage in such case is the