Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1904-12-22

Tie STduuCulluFel. lSOINplulHdHL Ill.
stituted this proceeding to have this
clause in the will declared void. Held,
that the will was void for remoteness,
as not being clearly limited to the
grandchildren then living.
Schuknecht VS.. Schultz, ct. al, "a N.
e. 81 Gll)
PERSONAL INJURIES.
Deceased, boy of ~ years of age.
left school with a companion, and ran
along a road where they were accus-
toned toNseeing train pass, and de-
ceased was struck and killed by the
train; but no one saw how the acct
dent occurred, and there was no direct
evidence that he failed to look or lis
ten. Action was brought against tina
railroad company for damages. Held,
that 1t could not be said that there
vas no possible reasonable explana-
Ion save willful or gross negligence.
nd defendant was not entitled to a
.irect verdict, but the question was
Tor the jury. Mcdonald vs.. New York
central Railroad Company, "a N. e.
Is (Mass)
PERSONAL INJURIES.
Plaintiff boarded train at sta
ton to assist her children to take the
train. She gave no notice to any en-
ploye in charge that she did not intend
to become passenger. Before she
left the interior OF the car the usual
preparation for starting had been
made, and when she came to the door
of the car it's platform gates were
closed, and a brakeman beckoned her
to the next platform, and said, as he
helped her down the steps, IT'S all
right, not going very fast; be care
full" Plaintiff fell, and was injured,
and brought suit for damages Held,
that the circumstances which made it
negligent on the part Of the brakeman
to act as he did, were obvious, making
it contributory negligence on her part
to attempt to leave the train, preclud
ing a recovery for the injuries sus-
tanned. Flaherty VS.. Boston & M. r.
r. u N. e. 66 (Mass.)
CARRIERS.
Plaintiff was on west bound car Of
defendant, returning from baseball
game to the city. The car was
crowded, and he. with many others, was
standing upon what is commonly
known and designated as the running
board of a summer street car. While
in that position, defendant transfer
company, by its servant, drove a large
two horse bus. filed with ball players
against plaintiff, while standing on the
running board, and crushed him
against the car, and when it pulled
away from the car he fell to the street
and was injured. Plaintiff brought
suit against the transfer company and
the street car company. Defendants
commended that plaintiff, by standing
upon the running board of the car, was
violating penal ordinance Of the
city, providing that it should
be unlawful for any person
to hang from the outside of any street
car. This ordinance was passed when
the only cars in operation In the city
| were drawn by horses. Held, that said
ordinance was inapplicable to summer
cars subsequently operated by cleo
| tricity. arranged with seats running
crosswise, with a footboard running
| lengthwise of the car, used as step
or platform for the accommodation Of
passengers. and that 1t was not negli-
| gence in itself for plaintiff to be riding
on the running board. Transfer Co.
VS.. Morrow, ~ N. e. 189 Gndiana.)
| REAL ESTATE-CoMMISS
Plaintiff, a real estate agent, was
employed by the defendant, to effect
| the exchange Of stock of goods. He
procured a purchaser with whom an
executory contract was made, the con-
summation Of which depended upon the
purchasers ability to show clear title
to certain land and to pay in money
the difference between It's agreed value
| and the value of the stock OF goods.
1.-the exchange was never consummated.
| Plaintiff brought suit to recover his
commission. Held that the making OF
| The contract did not entitle the broker
to commissions, In the absence OF any
| showing that the purchaser was able
to perform and that the failure to ef-
feet performance was caused by the
default of the owner Of the goods.
SNYDER VS.. Fuller, 101 N. w. 100
Iowa)
BENEFIT Association.
A bylaw of a fraternal benefit asso-
citation provided that mo change IN
the beneficiary shall be effective until
the delivery of the new certificate, and
until such time the old certificate
shall be held in force" II. r. hold q
benefit certificate in the association
payable at death to his wife. On Feb
ruarys 10, 1900, the insured filled out
and signed a blank form on the back
of his certificate, in which he requested
it's cancellation, and that new one
be issued in the same amount, payable
to ]. r., brother. The written re-
auest was duly acknowledged before
a notary, and the certificate, with the
request for change of beneficiary, was
mailed to the head clerk Of the So
ciety. on February 10, 1900. The head
clerk did not receive same until Feb
ruary is, 1900. On February Is. 1900.
n. r. died. and the claim was after
wards allowed against the society
without determining to whom 1t should
be paid. After such allowance, J. r..
the beneficiary, died. and this action
vas begun by his administrator to re-
cover the insurance. A short time
after that this suit was instituted. the