Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1904-11-14
e@@~~A1111~@1AA11@@A~@@@@
klmportant Decisions )
HUSBAND AND WIFE.

The defendants are husband and
wife. Plaintiff sold the husband one
Dress SUIT, one tuXe 10 and oae
sack business suit, ana brought thus
action against both husband and wife,
seeking to hold the wife under stat
ute of the state of Colorado which
provides in substance. that the ex-
penses of the family are chargeable
upon the property of both husband and
wife or either of them, and in relation
thereto. they may be sued Jointly or
separately. Held. that in the absence
We're on account Of family expenses
plaintiff could not recover. Gilman vs.
Mathews, II Pac. 1865 (Colo)
CORPORATIONS.
Plaintiff and q third person agreed
to locate mining claims. This was done
and the third person sold the claims to
q corporation, which issued to him Il
certificate of stock In payment there
of. The third person had informed
plaintiff that he could have half in
terest in the claims. Plaintiff made no
promises in return, and there was no
evidence of the terms on which lie was
to share in the enterprise. He con-
tributed to the enterprises money and
services. Held, insufficient to show that
plaintiff was the owner Of a half Of the
stock and entitled to a decree dill Getting
the corporation to issue to him GER
tificate for the amount thereof. Grif-
fin vs. Knoblock, n Pac. $40 (Colo)
ONS-aAILROA1oS.
The plaintiff is railroad corpora
tat 1tt,n Of
railroad from Atchison to Cummings in
Atchison county, over which it trans
ports passengers and freight. 1t brought
this action to perpetually enjoin the
defendant from riding over it's track
from Atchison to Cummings on q BIZ
cycle SO constructed as to enable him
to run it on the rails. Held. that de-
fendant by reason of his actions was a
continuing menace to the safety Of
public travel and should be perpetual
ly enjoined.
Atchlson Railway vs.. Spaulding II
Pac 106 (Kan.)
RAILROADS-SPEC TAXES.
Complainant railroad company own
ed several parcels of land, in the ex-
elusive possession of private individ-
udlS WHO uSGu lltC SdIIle Luz IICll OWI
business. The land was reached by
compliments tracks, who benefited by
shipment to those in possession. No
rents were paid by those in posse ssion.
Held. that the real estate was not ex-
empt from general taxation under the
statutes of Michigan exempting rail-
roads paying a specific tax from all
other taxes.
Grand Rapids & Ind. Ry vs. Grand
Rapids. IL d. L. N. 400 (Mich.)
JOINT ENTERPRISE-FT
Plaintiffs were solicited by defend
ant to Join with himself and others in
the purchase of some mines, and to
form q corporation to develop and
operate the same, to which corporation
the mines We're to be decided, which
with $4,000 Of the money raised was to
constitute it's capital stock. De md
ant represented that d had an option
on the mines for 100000. A corpora
ton was formed and afterwards 1t was
discovered that the option was for
$4,000 and that defendant and others
divided the differences between them.
Plaintiffs sue to recover, alleging
fraud Held, that the money was OBJ
tanned thru Misrepresentation and de-
ceit. Barbour VS.. Hurlburt, II, d. L.
N 400 (Mich.)
CONTRADICTORY NEGLIGENCE.
Plaintiff was injured by stepping
into a gutter. From the evidence 1t APP
peared that the existence Of the gutter
was we'll known to plaintiff, that it was
broad daylight when the accident oc-
Cured, and that plaintiff was arrang-
ing packages of merchandise In her
arms and did not know she was so
close to the place. Held, the question
Of her contributory negligence was for
the Jury. Herring VS.. st. Joseph, II D.
L. N. 500 (Mich.)