The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-03-27

Passes.-When goods are sold for cash on delivery, the payment and delivery are concurrent acts. and, therefore. the title to the property does not pass on delivery without payment of the price which was agreed to be paid in cash
 Affirmed. Opinion by Haralson, J.
 Birmingham Southern Railroad Company
 ys. Powell.-Action for Negligence.-Ap-
 pealed from the City Court of Blrming-
 ham.
 l. Assumption of Risk no Defense to Wanton or Intentional Injury-In an ac- tion to recover damages for personal in- juries, where the complaint contains count which charges that the injuries were caused by the wantonness or inten- tional wrong of the defendant, plea set ting up an assumption of risk on the part of the plaintiff constitutes no defense to such a count and Is demurrable.
 2. Railroads; Statute Prescribing Duty as to Railroad Cars Applicable to Street Railroads Operated by Electricity. provision of the statute prescribing the duty of railroads whose tracks cross each other, as to such crossing (code PttA h6 eiph o1tAJ lS dpDlltdDlt u SlIGtl railways operated by electricity
 3. Statutory Provision as to Railroad Crossing What Required of Employes- Under the statute imposing the duty upon engineers and conductors running trains upon tracks of two rairoada which cross each other (code, paragraph BAD it is nec- essary not only that they should re- quire the trains controlled by them, that they should come to a full stop within l444. attempting to cross, but that they must not cross until, by the exercise of the highest degree of diligence, they have ascertained that the way is clear; and if the conductor or engineer of a train or the conductor or motorman of an elec- tric street car on one of the intersecting roads, proceeds across the interseetng track without knowing. after the eXer- else of the highest degree of diligence, that the way is clear, he is guilty of negligence
 1. Same; Right of Persons in Control of Car to Presume Compliance with Statute Although an engineer or conductor on the train of railroad company, or the motOrman or conductor of an electric street railway company, when approach ing crossing where there is an intersec- tion of another railroad, had the right to presume that the employees of the train tINAA Niit liAANi9tNlliB lOetd VIII olbP tltlA train as required by law, it is nevertho- less his duty, after having oi4plied with the statute himself, to keep a lookout for approaching trains; and if in the face or facts reasonably indicating that the train approaching on the intersecting road is not going to stop at said crossing he attempts to cross, he thereiJ becomes chargeable with negligence
 ,. Negligence; When Question of Wan IY,ta T,,t, n f.n Submitted to Jury.--In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries 1t was shown that the plaintiff was a conductor on car operated by an electric street railway company, and that the injury was re- ceived by the plaintiff by reason of col- lision between the car on which he was conductor and a train of cars operated on the defendants track, which collision occurred at crossing of the tracks of the two companies in a public street in the city of Birmingham; that the defen- dants employees in charge of It's train were at the time making what Is called a drop switch" the said train being composed of several loaded cars and that nine of the cars were cut loose from the engine and permitted to roll by their own momentum down an incline to said crossing; that the car on which the plalntin was conductor, and which was run into by defendants train of cars, stopped within about fifteen feet of the crossing. and after having so stopped proceeded to cross and when on said crossing in front of the approaching cars on the interseeting road. said electric car stopped by reason of the failure of the electric current; that the motorman of the electric car abandoned his post and the plaintiff went to it and attempted to work She controller with the intent of backing the car off the crossing, ana while so engaged the collision occurred, producing the injury The evidence for the plaintiff tended to show that there was no brakeman or othef person on the loaded cars when they were cut loose from the engine, and without any one to manage or control them said cars were allowed to run down grade at a speed of fifteen miles an hour across the track ot the electric car line. in a public street of a city; that the conductor of the defen- dant's train who cut the cars loose was familiar with the crossing, and he and the employees knew that the electric cars were running on said electric road and over the crossing every few minutes in the day. Held that under such evidence 1t was proper to submit the question Of wantonness or willful or intentional wrong to the jury
 Affirmed Opinion by Dowdell J.
 Force vs. Age-Herald Company, et al
 Bill in Equity by Creditor of Corpora
 tion to Subject Assets Misappropriated
 to the Payment of His Debts. Appeal
 from the Chancery Court of Jefferson
 l. Bill by Corporate Creditor to Subject Assets Misappropriated to the Payment or His Debts When Constitutes Depart ure. Where a bill filed by the creditor or a corporation against a corporation end It's directors as individuals, and as originally filed charges the individual re- spondents with misappropriating the us- Ing of the assets of the corporation which was insolyent, to satisfy their individual liabilities, for the purpose of hindering. delaying and defrauding the corporate creditors, and seeks to have the assets so misappropriated and converted sub Jected to the payment of his debts, and 1T they have been disposed of to fix liability upon the individual respondents, the amendment of such iill, in so far as IL relates to the case against the individ- ual respondents by averring that the transfer of the property of the corpora uon by the individual members was ulfra Vires the corporation, and by seeking to fasten a liability on the indiyidnal re- spondents, solely upon the ground that while acting as agent for said corpora ton they participated in corporate act which was ultra wires the corporation. such amendment is a departure from the orlslhal cause of action, so far as the matter relates to the individual respond- ents.
 7. Right of Creditor to Attack Corpor- ate Transaction on the Ground That If Was Ultra Vires.-A creditor of n cor porauon cannot attack a corporate trans