Wallowa chieftain. [volume] (Joseph, Union County, Or.) 1884-1909, 1902-09-25
RECENT JUDICIAL osc,.,-


That one is a general aeen,
Surance company for a dasns,
tory is held. in Insurance o. "a
vs.. Thornton (Alal. 55LRI
give him no power to bind ~ ~
pany by contracts entered inn
Of his territorial limits.
The right TO designate N.
through shipments at throne,
held. in Post vs.. Southern D..
COmpany( Tenn. - L r
belong 10 the carrier. and M.
shipper. in the absence OF a sBs
or controlling reason TO the conr--
An agreement by the holder a;
rual benefit certificate 10 ha en-
by bylaws subsequently enae,s5 =
in Gaut vs.. Supreme Council
H. CIennJ. - L. K. A.. 4,s5 No,
thoriZe the reduction OF the banss.
ed for by his certificate. after \.
for years paid assessments q,
iginal value.
An insurance company Is bss
Franklin F. Ins. Co. VS.. Bradfor, ID, 4
40 L. r. A. 40S. 10 be liable an -
icy properly signed and dellverpd =
suOasent Of Its duly authorized ,,...
although 1t has expressly forbjdds1 !,
agent 10 insure the PROPERTY eov.,.
by the policy and the asen, IA, :
knowledge that the policy hss III
written and the premium collected
That an assault committed by a
in jumping upon a stranger and =
juring him resulted merely FINN :,
mischievOus or playful propeusi,7 !,
held. in Crowley VS.. GrOonel Ut "a.
10 abSOlve the owner from llahIIi,, !,
he knew of its disposition To eomn,,
such injuries. or knew enough O, \,
habits 10 convince q man OF oriir,-
prudence of its inclination TO comm,
them.
Using a part of a railroad loess,,
outside OF the space occupled nv IA.
tracks for the abutments and appns,s
of bridge constructed TO carry an 81.
isting highway over the road 50 Is !,
abolish a grade crossing is held !,
Boston X A. 4. L. Co. VS.. Worregs.
Mass. 80 l. K. A.. G..,3. not To h. 4.
imposition of a new easement on ia
railroad right of way SO as 10 enti,le Ii.
railroad company to eOmpensat.,
therefor.
A defendant is held. in TgavelsS
Protective Association Us. Gilbe- &c
c. App. Sth Coz. 30 L. R A.. JSS q
have no right TO avoid 2 judgu.n
against il on the ground that its ags1-
ON whom the process was served MS
apprehended the nature OF the ac;
believing he was not the proper Vsr
son TO receive service and therefor
failed to notify defendant. which v.
thereby deprived of the opportunity d
making a defense.
4 Judgment for aIimony in favor d
a wife. the right to which become
vested by force Of statute upon d.
cree of divorce for the fault Of ID
husband. is held, in COffman VS.. Fl
ney tOhiol. TO be debt against the hui
band. subject only 10 variation
amount in case of appeal, which, upz
the death OF both parties pending ~
peal, will survive in favor Of the pa
sOnal representative Of the wife an
against the personal representative
the husband.
One who is only indirectly and D
motely affected by bylaw Of yolui
tary association prohibiting its me1
bers from dealing on the market eiihs
with members engaged in the san
business or with others who deal vii
such MEMBERS and making a ylOat0
thereof punishable by tine or e1pulsn
from the association. is held. in Dow
VS.. Bennett (Kas.l. 80 L. L. A.. so.
have no right to maintain an acti0
Of injunction to restrain the assOc-
ton from fining or expelling a memO'
for his violation OF such bylaw.