Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1904-10-10
1@@&@11@11AN~ NmH00@@110WJ,s
3lmportant Decisions!
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..


| Defendant, the principal owner o
certain property, employed plaintiff tt
procure a purchaser thereof. The con-
tract of employment stipulated thai
plaintiff should be paid a commission
of 10 per cent of the purchase price, to
be paid "at the date of the payment
of the purchase price or In lnstali-
nents according to payment by said
purchaser" Plaintiff procured Il pur-
chaser, who paid part Of the price al
the date of the sale Defendant receiv-
ed no part thereof. Held, that plaintiff
was entitled to his commission on the
part of the price paid; payment OF
commission not being dependent on the
payment of the entire purchase price,
nor on the fact that defendant recefv-
ed part paid. Frank VS.. Bonnevie, n
Pac. 1853 (Colo.)
MASTER AND SERVANT.
Plaintiff was employed by defendant
as professor Of mathematics in the
Colorado Agricultural college for a
year commencing July /, 1891. and con-
tinued in it's service until December 81,
1896 at which time he was requested
to resign and upon his refusal 80 to DO,
was discharged. There was no COM
plant made against his professional
work, but 1t was claimed that the best
interests Of the college required his
removal. Plaintiff brought suit for SAL
ary from December 81, 1896 to July =,
1897, claiming an implied hiring Tor
year Held, that where servant em-
ployed for one year continues to render
services without objection by the mas
ter after the expiration of the year a
new contract for a year arises by I'M
plication. State Board Of Agriculture
vs.. Meyers, II Pac. 371 (Colo)
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.
Defendant employed plaintiff as her
attorney to defend an eminent domain
proceeding, under contract by which
she agreed to pay plaintiff for his SER
vices Z per cent of the mauont OF any
Judgment recovered for the taking OF
the land. A Judgment In favor Of de-
PENDANT was reversed on appeal, and
thereafter for more than ten years
plaintiff failed to bring the case on Tor
a. retrial, tho defendant requested him
to do so at various times, and provid-
ed funds for the payment Of costs, etc.
Plaintiff testified that the reason for
his neglect was that after the case was
reversed a panic ensued and the land
greatly deprecated in value. and that
he was afraid, If he pressed the case
for trial, the petitioner would withdraw
it's petition, and plaintiff would be UNI
able to get anything. Held, that by
reason Of such delay defendant was
justified in concluding that plaintiff had
abandoned the contract, and that plain
tiff was therefore not entitled to re-
cover for his services rendered.
F'urwell VS.. Colman, n Pac. 379
tWast.)
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.
Plaintiff a physician instited suit for
damages against defendant, an attor-
ney, claiming that defendant malicious
ly and without reasonable or proper
cause stirred UP one r. to prosecute an
action against plaintiff for alleged mall
plactice as physician and surgeon,
said action having resulted in verdict
of no cause for action. e. was irrespon-
sible and plaintiff was obliged to pay
the costs and attorneys fees, etc. Held.
that defendant was liable in the absence
OF proof of malice and want of reason
able or probable cause.
Smits VS.. Hogan, u Pac. (Wash.)
LANDLORD AND TENANT.
Where lease provided a rental Of
1898 per month, payable monthly for
a term terminating on April 8, 1901,
with the privilege of renewal at the
same rate and terms each year there
after from year to year." such lease did
not entitle the lessee to a perpetual
right or renewal, but constituted a let
ting from month to month after the ex-
piration of the term specified.
Tischuer VS.. Rutledge, n Pac. 1888
(Wash.)