The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-10-28
RECENT LEGAL OPINIONS.
-Contracts.-Performance of Legal Obliga

tons
Plaintiffs contracted with defendants, a
company which owned salmon canning
factory in Alaska, TO perform service as
sailors in navigating a vessel from San
Francisco to such plant and return and in
catching and canning salmon while there,
during the season. for which they were to
receive a stipulated compensation. After
reaching the plant they refused, without
cause, to further perform the contract. un-
less defendants superintendent signed an
agreement to pay additional compensation.
He stated that he had no authority to do
so, but being unable to procure other men,
owing to the remoteness OF the place and
the shortness of the season, he complied
with their demand and a second contract
was signed, Identical with the first, except
as to the compensation to be paid. Held.
that an agreement to pay additional COM
pensation for services which plaintiffs were
legally bound to render under the old con-
tract was void for want of consideration,
conceding the superintendent authority to
make IL, there being no just ground to
claim, under the circumstances shown, that
defendant voluntarily waived the breach of
the original contract I117 Federal Rep.
California, Judge Ross). 99.l
Street Railways.-Transfers.-
sengers.-
A passenger on a street car on which
the company issued transfers to its various
connecting lines, received from the eonduc-
ter transfer to line other than the one
TO which he had requested one. Not no
ticing the mistake he presented it to the
conductor on the line to which he had re-
quested transfer, who refused to accept
1t. The passenger declined to pay further
fare and was elected from the car. Held,
that since the passenger was under no
obligation to make a technical examination
of the transfer. and since the company was
responsible for the mistake of it's agent.
1t was liable In substantial damages for
the breach of contract occasioned thereby,
though the conductor called upon to cor
rect the mistake was not the one who had
made it. no Pacific Rep. washington,
Judge Dunbar), ISL
-Divorce.-Delay in Instituting Proceed
ings.-
Where a husband delays to brig suit for
divorce for adultery for twenty-five years
after discovering his wife's infidelty, the
fact that she has been residing abroad and
he in the United States during such time
was no excuse for the delay; he having
known or her residence at the time of the
discovery, and having been in a position to
ascertain it ever since. I53 Atlantic Rep
New Jersey, Judge Stevens), ~
Husband and wife.-Conveyances.-
A transfer by a husband to his wife OF
his interest in his deceased fathers estate
in consideration of her disseminating di-
vorce proceedings against him, is not based
on a sufficient consideration as against the
husbands creditors, and the conveyance
may be set aside to satisfy creditors exc
cutions against the property. [91 North
western Rep. 690.]
-Humors of the Law
1t is immaterial whether a witness 1:
white or black. IDolan VS.. State. 81 Ala
man can recollect as well in the Italian
language as he can in English Judge
Morgan. in Idaho, 1100l
A witness cannot testify of his own
istence for two hundred years. [Hampsor
VS.. Taylor, Is Rhode Island, ST.