Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1904-12-03
e@@1@H@~@H]H@M@@@@%@@@@~@3
) Important Decisions{
ACCORD AND sATIsFAC TION.

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.
Plaintiff sued defendant to recover
the sum of So alleged to be due upon
Dromissory note executed by defen-
dant. 1t was admitted by plaintiff that
defendant had paid SIS but defendant
insisted that this amount was paid In
compromise and settlement of the full
amount due. Held, that while the re-
ceipt OF II less sum from the debtor
than the whole on an agreement to
discharge the entire indebtedness is
not satisfaction, being without con-
debt Is disputed, however trivial the
dispute, the settlernent is binding.
Hoidale VS.. Wood, 100 N. w. 100
(Minn.)
ANIMALS ON TRACK.
Plaintiff sued defendant railroad
company for the unlawful killing Of his
horse. Plainti Reclaimed the defendant
was negligent in that it failed to sound
whistle or give signals at the cross
ing as required by the statute. The
horse was running at large and ran
from the dark suddenly in front of the
engine. Defendant contended that the
statute requiring signals at the cross
ing was not applicable to dumb AMI
mails. Held that the statute was appli-
cable to dumb animals and that failure
to give the signals was negligence in
itself.
Texas & P. Ry., vs.. Crutcher, 81 s..
w. 341 fTexas.)
MIsREPREsENTAT
Plaintiff sold defendant, retail liq-
uor dealer. quantity Of whisky, and
defendant claims that at the time OF
the sale plaintiffs agent represented
to defendant that the whisky would
Defendant executed his not to plain
tiff for the purchase price. Defendant
alleges that the whisky was unsatis-
factory and refused to pay the note,
whereupon plaintiff instituted suit. De-
PENDANT claimed no liability on the
rgound OF Misrepresentation. Held,
that the representation that the whisky
would meet the defendants wants EFT
would meet the wants of defendants
trade, were expressions OF opinions.
and not fraudulent Misrepresentation.
Shiretski vs.. Kessler & Co., 81 So. 422
(Ala.)
PERSONS ON TRACK.
Deceased, who was car repairer In
defendants employ, having been
ordered to leave on a passenger train,
then approaching, in the daytime
started across the track to a Toulouse
to get certain tools, and as he did 30
passed in front OF switch engine.
backing toward him at speed in ex-
cess of that authorized by city ordt-
nance, and was killed. At the time de-
ceased stepped on the track the tender
of the engine was within six or seven
feet OF him, and there was nothing
to obstruct his view thereof. The en-
CINE was making the usual noise Of
exhaust, and the bell was ringing.
Held. that, though deceased had
right to cross the track at the place
in question, he was guilty OF contrib
utory negligence as matter OF law.
Bennett vs.. St. Louis s. w. Ry. 81 s.
w. 333 (Texas.)
CoNTRACT-BREAC
Plaintiff sold hay in stacks to de-
PENDANT for an agreed price and agreed
to furnish men to assist in baling.
Plaintiff insisted in deciding on the
order in which the stacks should be
baled and made it impossible for de-
PENDANT to bale the hay II this order
was nat carried out. Plaintiff then
brought suit for damages, claiming
breach OF cantract. Held, that plain
tiff was not entitled to damages for
defendants breach Of contract to bale
and remove the hay. Fowles vs.. Ru-
mart II XIX (Mich)