Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-05-24
: lmportant Decisions,
HEALTH.

An insolvent person became afflicted
with smallpox, and, by direction of
the county superintendent of health.
was removed to a private pesthouse es-
tablished by Il corporation for the use
of its employees. No immune person
being at hand to care for the invalid.
plaintiff, who was physician, at the
request of the superintendent, die So
The county had pesthouse at FOWL
some miles distant butt 1t had never
been used. The laws of North Carolina
provide that quarantine shall be under
the control of the county superntend-
ent of health. and that he shall nave
power to isolate persons suffering
from contagious diseases, and tina the
expense of removal and of care after
removal shall, where the patien is
insolvelt. be county charge. Held.
that tile county is liable to plaintiff
for the reasonable value of his services
in caring for the patient. Coppls vs.
Commissioners. so S. T.. 574 On. Card
PARTNERSHIP.
After death of plaintiffs hus oand,
all his interest in partnership was
transferred to plaintiffs account. Shs
allowed the proceeds to be used by
the firm or it's agreement to pay hei
10 per cent interest thereon, bu. eX-
ercised no control over the business,
and never consulted with anyone re-
garding it, The firm accounts ST owed
that plaintiff for while drew 10 per
cent of the net profits" for the loan
and use" of her money, and afterwards
121s per cent Of such profits Defend
ent's tIecedent claimed the entire BUS
mess of the firm, and, thru hef son,
had entire control thereof; ami the
only memorandum evidencing rlaint-
ifs interest was signed by him n the
name of the firm, and recited that 1t
was mutually agreed that, for and IN
consideration OF plaintiffs leaving
her money in the business. she should
receive 10 per cent of the net annual
profit,, thereof Held, that such facts
were insufficient to show q partner
ship. Of which plaintiff was a member.
Altgelt VS.. Elmendorf, So s. W. Al
(Texsts.)
NEGLIGENCE.
Plaintiff was engaged in operating
a chicory grinder. A box which had
been used as step to reach the feed
attachment above the rolls and belts
had been removed during fire on the
premises and when plaintiff went TO
work after the fire. pulley block, over
which a loose board had been placed,
was used as a step. The immediate
caus. of the accident was the tipping
of the block while plaintiff was stand
ing on it to attach the connee ton to
the feed above this, throwing his arm
into the gearing Plaintiff brought
Hold that llI1intiff
assumed the risk incident to the tip
Ming or sliding of the loose board plac-
ed across the pulley.
Minnie VS.. Mueller, IL D. L N, 10
(Mich)
MASTER AND SERVANT.
Plaintiff was flour packer and was
called from his regular employment
by defendants superintendent and dl-
rected to do some oiling and 20 clean
the waste and grease out of boxes on
line shaft and put in new waste and
grease. The line shaft was mir e or ten
feet above the floor and plaintiff
mounted q machine by way of ladder
in the usual manner and standing
upon the machine attempted te dig out
the old grease from the box. Directly
in front of him was a gearing exposed,
entirely visible, which consisted OF
cog wheel on the line shaft meshing
with another wheel on another shaft
Plaintiff was compelled to re'lch over
these wheels while performing his
work, and his arm or clothing became
caught in the cogs and he was injur-
ed. Plaintiff brought action for dam
ages. Held, that the danger from the
VIII aels was visible, requiring only or
binary care, and that it was not neces-
sary for the superintendent to warn
plaintiff of the dangers ane. verdict
should have been directed fo1 defend
ant.
Hathaway, vs.. Milling Co., IL D. L.
NJ, Al, (Mich.)