The Washington times., 1902-03-17
LEGAL DECISIONS OF INTEREST
TO LAWYER AND LAYMAN
Corporations Are Liable.

Corporations Are Liable.
Corporations can be held Liable for
damage for torts done in pursuance of
conspiracy and combination between them
and other corporations or persons. just
like natural persons. holds the Supreme
Court of Appeals of West Virginia. In
the case of West Virginia Transp. Co. VS..
Standard Oil Co. Gao 5. E. Rep. 591.)
u. S. Census Is Authority.
The court will take judicial notice of
the published official census of the United
States for the purpose of determining the
population of the several countries of the
State at given period. holds the Supreme
Court of Missouri in the case of State,
etc., VS.. Evans (66 s. W. Rep. S54.)
Insured Committed a Fraud.
Where the premiums on life policy
of insurance were paid by the wife of in
sured, who had possession of the policy,
and who after being divorced from in
sured. gave the policy to him in pur-
suance of his agreement to have their
son made the beneficiary the Supreme
Court of Mississippi in the case of Cock
rell VS.. Cockrell (31 So. Rep. 203) holds
that the insured's action in making him.
self the beneficiary instead OF his son
was a fraud on the son. and after the
insured's death his personal representa-
tives held the proceeds of the policy as
trustees FOR the son.
Reputation Proves Pedigree.
In an action to recover damages for the
death of jack alleged to have been neg
ligently killed. the Supreme Court of Mis-
sissippi. in the ease of Jones VS.. Memphis.
ETC.. Packet Company (31 So. Rep), held
that the pedigree of the jack could be
proved by reputation; the court also held
that obstinancy and stubboruness were
known characteristics of all jacks, and
that these known habits and instincts
should be always borne in mind in hand
ling these animals.
Liable as Partners.
Where persons hold themselves out,
and allow themselves to be held out. as
partners. to the public at large and to
particular individuals, who accordingly
deal with them in the belief that they are
partners. the Supreme Court OF Louisi-
ana in the case of Houston River Canal
Company VS.. Kopke (31 So. Rep. 1860,
holds that they should be held liable as
partners for all the purposes OF such
dealings.
Contract Holds Good.
Where passenger holding a railway
ticket from a station in Texas to one in
Mexico entered sleeping car at theTexas
station, though his ticket was not taken
up Or car fare collected until the train
had entered Mexico, the Court of Civil
Appeals of Texas, in the case of the Pull
man Palace Car Company VS.. Arents (6S
5. W. Rep. 329), holds that he was a.
NJ Z-n -nrNcrr h..
the contract was practically entered into
there; and an action for violation there
OF may be brought in that State. in coun-
" in which such car company has an
agent. though neither plaintiff nor defend
ant is resident of Texas
Not Liable to Consignees.
A consignor of grain. which was deiiv-
cred to railway company for shipment,
drew a draft on the consignees. and at
tached thereto bills of lading issued to
him by the carrier. The draft was en-
dorsed and delivered by the payees, to-
gether with the bills Of lading. to a bank.
which paid to them the amount OF it. The
drawees accepted and paid the draft. On
these facts the Supreme Court of Kansas,
in the case of Hall VS.. Keller (57 Pac.
KEEP. 5ls), held that neither the bank nor
the payees were liable to the consignees
of the grain (the drawees) for failure
Of title in the drawer of the draft to the
property shipped.
Authority to Destroy Liquor.
statute in Arkansas provides that GER
tain judicial officers having reasonable
grounds to believe that intoxicating
liquors are kept in any prohibited dis
.rict. to be sold contrary to law, or have
been shipped there to be so sold, shall
issue warrant directing a search for
such liquors. specifying the place to be
and directing such liquors to
De publicly destroyed. In constituting this
statute the Supreme Court of Arkansas.
n the case of Ferguson vs. Josey (66 s.
". Rep. 3iD, holds that so much of the
section as provided for the seizure and
destruction of the liquor. irrespective of
he part authorizing search, was con-
ItitutionaI.
Injunction Does Not Hold
Where an abutting property owner
seeks to restrain a street railway COM
'aEy incorporated for transportation Of
'reight from operating its road because
{ is using heavy electric motors and
hauling large quantities of freight, rem
lering access to his premises dangerous
and inconvenient and endangering the
ives of his family and other persons US
ng the street. the Court of Civil Appeals
>f Texas, in the case of Rische VS.. Texas
rransp. Co. (66 S. W. Rep. 325). holds
hat an injunction is properly denied on
he ground that the injury is not ire
parable. but that it may be compensated
or by damages.
Even though a juror has formed an
pinion from reading newspapers. as to
he crime charged. the Supreme Court
# Nebraska, in the case of Rothman VS..
'tate (SS N, W. Rep. $50. holds that il
lie declares on oath that he will base
lis verdict exclusively on the law and
he evidence he is qualified to serve.