The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-10-10
RECENT LEGAL OPINIONS.
and Jar-Sick Neigh

Where 1t Is necessary for defendant, In
erecting house on his lot, TO drill and
blast In a stratum OF solid rock In the lot.
and such work. SO far as done, has been
done In careful manner, and without
damage to other property, the prosecution
OF such work cannot be enjoined because
piaintn. occupying house on adjoin-
operation, In such a feeble condition, and
SO sensitive to any noise or Jar that his
life may be ENDANGERED by such blasting.
lLord VS. De Witt United States Circuit
Court. Southern District Of New York;
Action to Abate Public Nuisance
An action to abate a public nuisance
can only be brought as provided by statute
Hence, an action to enjoin the erection of
a JAN as being upon county property, can
; only De maintained upon the ground of be-
ing public nuisance. to maintain which
aputting property owners and individuals
are not proper parties lbs Ohio Law Jour-
Purchase on Margins-Right of Broker
TO Sell
In a recent case the Supreme Court of
Michigan holds that where a commodity Is
purchased on a margin for future delivery
under stipulation with the broker that ION
al marginal business the right is reserved
10 close the transaction when margins are
running out, the broker may sell when
the margins are not kept good, and Ia not
compelled to carry the deal until the time
specified for delivery, and sue for the loss
occasioned by decline in price IL is for
the jury TO determine, I'm cases OF uneer-
talnty, whether contract for future de-
livery Is In good faith for actual sale,
or Us merely gambling contract. (Demary
vs.. Burtenshaw. September. 1902
Contracts Against Public Policy
The Supreme Court of Vermont. I'm the
late case or Livingston VS.. Page, held thar
a contract by which plaintiff. an editor.
agreed to use the influence of his paper
to secure defendants nomina ton for Con
gress, Is void as against public policy The
court cites approyingly the Illinois case of
illness VS. Hesing There the plaintiY sen,
the defendant $40 with a request that he
use his influence to get plaintiff nominated
upon him for go more IL he got the nom
ination. The defendent kept the $50 and
aided the plaintiffs opponent The suit was
to recover this money. but on the ground
policy, II was held that no recovery could
be had. t52 Atlantic Rep (Vermont). sSs
Responsibility of Drivers of Horses
The Albany Law Journal reports an in.
teresting negligence case recently before
the courts of New York The plaintiff.
while standing early one evening near the
middle OF one of the streets of the bor-
ough of Queens. waiting for a trolley car.
was knocked down and badly injured by
a runaway horse and wagon. There was
no driver on the wagon. and the owner
or the runaway, who was sued by the In
5ured man. contended that no negligence
on his part could be inferred from the ac-
cident happening the way II did. 1t was
held, however, that the rule is otherwise,
and that II Ia negligence TO allow horses
to be in the public streets unattended. Ii
was also held that the plaintiff was not
guilty OF contrfbutory negligence because
Of the fact that he was standing in the
the runaway on account Of darkness.
kelly w. Adelmann. New York Court al
Appeals, Second Appellate ptvtsion.j