Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1904-12-26
9~oeee0eo~~e~ s~~eeee~e~~S1
{lmportant Decisions}
HUSBAND AND WIFE.
Observation-Disclosures

HUSBAND AMI VIII IL.
Defendant was erecting houses on
lots owned by her and the contracts
were made by her husband in his own
name, who gave instructions to the
builders. Plaintiff sold a bill Of hard
ware for use in the construction OF
the houses. The contract was made
with the husband and the goods were
charged to him, in the belief that the
land was owned by him, although no
representations as to ownership were
made Defendant was present when
| the contract was made, and selected
the goods.
| Held, that the contract was made
in behalf of the wife. Popp VS.. Con-
merry, IL d. l.. N. (Mich.o
EJECTMENT-ESTO
Defendant was in possession OF land
under an agreement with plaintiff who
had foreclosed a mortgage given by
defendant. Defendant claimed to have
paid rent to +, who held tax title
on the land. In ejectment against de-
PENDANT, held, that defendant became
plaintiffs tenant and by his agreement
with plaintiff recognizing PLAINTIFFS
title he is estopped from settling up
| CIe Llll0 VI L. AASOohAS 10 =
d. L. N. 4S5 (Mich.)
EXECUTIONS--HO
Plaintiff, while living with her son.
purchased lot, which was never occu-
pied by her in any other manner or
for any other purpose than to raise
| vegetables. Plaintiff never made any
plans for building on the lot and testl-
fed that she was too poor to buili.
Defendant secured Judgment against
plaintiff and levied upon this lot. ana
this action was begun for tho purpose
Of having this levy set aside on the
ground that the lot in question was
claimed as a homestead. Held that
the acts did not establish and maintain
the lot as homestead. Ware VS..
Hall, II D. L. N. (Mich.)
DECEASED PARTNERS RIGHTS.
The complainants and brother were
co-partners in the lumber business, the
latter having ninth interest. The
partnership was dissolved b ythe death
of the brother owning the ninth inter-
est, and during the tendency OF a Dill
for accounting, one r. sought to pur-
chase certain lands owned by the part
nership. The surviving partners con-
sented to sell for 100000 If the adj
ministrator and widow of the deceased
partner would consent. The admins
traitor refused to agree to the sale, and
the surviving partners informed r that
the sale could not be made. SUISSE
ouently r and administrator made a
written contract whereby it was agreed
that the representative Of the deceased
partner would consent to sale OF the
IL, cid finn
of the payment to the administrators by
r Of $4,000 upon the contamination
of the sale. The surviving partners
were not informed OF this agreement.
The purchase was made by r and the
defendant administrator was paid the
one-ninth share Of the purchase price,
and also the sum of $4,000 provided
for In his contract with r. On Dill
filed against the administrators by the
surviving partners for an accounting.
held, that the $4,000 paid by II to the
administrator was partnership asset,
and that the agreement was not Tor q
sale of the deceased partners interest,",
but consent to the sale OF all the
property conditioned upon the payment
of $4,000 to the administrator.
Comstock VS.. Mcdonald, II D. L. N.
489 (Mich.)
MANSLAUGHTER- sCUFFLING.
Respondent and one D were engaged
in a friendly scuffle, when pistol car
ried in the pocket of respondent was
accidentally discharged, killing D. The
laws Of Indiana prohibit tn carrying
of concealed weapons. Held, that the
carrying Of the pistol by respondent
was not the performance Of wrongful
act within the meaning Of the statute
of Indiana declaring that whoever un-
lawfully kills human being involun-
tarily, but in the commission OF some
unlawful act, is guilty Of manslaughter.
Potter VS.. state, GA L. r. A. 942 (Ind.)