Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-03-08
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Opinions Handed Down Yes
terday Afternoon.
MANY LOCAL CAUSES
THE DEGREES IN LOWER COURTS
PASSED UPON.
Appeal Of Two Universities Against
Brooke P. Taylor-District
Wins a Suit.

| Appeals The main point at issue was the
| assertion that a release claimed to have
| been obtained by the railway company was
| procured, If at ALL through fraud. The SUBJ
| stantial allegation was that the defendant
| railway for $S5 had secured the signature
of Mrs. RockweIls husband Willis Rock
| well, by representing to him that Mrs
| Rockwell had sent the companys agent
| to him to settle the case. whereas she had
| refused to settle, and that after getting
the husbands signature the agent OF the
company came to Mrs. Rockwell with
the husband, and that when Mrs. Rock
| well again refused to sign release and
| compromise the case the husband, in anger,
| stated that his signature was on the re-
| lease and all the wife's rights were gone,
and that If she did not sign she would not
get anything, as his signature took away
her legal rights. The trial Justice took the
case from the jury and directed the re-
| turn of verdict for the defendant COM
| pany.
The first appeal to the Court of Appeals
| was on a proposition advanced by the rail-
! without joining the husband. The Court Of
| Appeals ruled to the contrary By the
| opinion just rendered the trial court was
| reversed on the ground that the case should
have been submitted to the jury.
| The Courts View.
The Court of Appeals, among other things,
held that if while Mrs. Rockwell was sick
stood by and heard the husband say his
| signature took away her rights and there
| after attempted to procure a release from
her without apprising her of her rights,
| the release should be set aside as procured
| under mistake Of law, and that it was
| quite as effectual to bar the release as a
| material Misrepresentation of fact.
One Of the grounds on which the trial
| court took away the from the jury
was that the plaintiff had not rendered
| the railway company the money 1t had
| paid her before bringing her suit. The
| court held that this was not necessary. On
| another point, to the effect that her CASH
| ing the check given in release of her action
| was ratiicat ton, the court held that there
| could be no ratification without knowledge,
| and that if the check cashed at time
/ when she remained under her original mis-
| apprehension as to her husbands sigma
| ture having taken away her rights, the
| cashing of the check did not prevent her
| recovery.
| The further point was made that Mrs
| Rockwell had not personally put up the
| money to bring suit and to make the
| tender of the amount paid her by the
| railway company, she showing that she
had not the money to do so, having spent
| it during her illness, which cost her over
| 500. and the amount paid her being $S5.
The lower court admitted evidence this
| point, but the upper court ruled that any
arrangement between Mrs. Rockwell and
other parties had nothing to do with the
question between Mrs. Rockwell and the
railway company. and that evidence on this
score was irrelevant and should not have
been admitted.
Mrs. Rockwell represented by At
torneys Charles F. Carusi and Charles H.
Merilat. $3.50. -
Order Affirmed, With Costs.
Columbian University and Johns Hopkins
University, appellants, against Brooke P.
Taylor and others; order affirmed with
costs; opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Shepard. I
The appellees are heirs at law of the late
Admiral Levin M. Powell who died Jan /
| uary Is. 1885, and the court proceeding in
wolves valuable property on l street be-
tween 18th and 18th streets that was owned
by him. The property was left to the ap
pellants as a trust. under certain condi-
lions, and the appellees are endeavoring
| to recover the real estate, and to have an
account and recovery of it's revenues. The
universities interposed a demurrer to the
bill of complaint filed in the case contend
Ing that the right to maintain the suit had
been lost by the delay of the compliments
in beginning their action. The demurrer
was overruled by the trial court, and the
universities were allowed a special appeal
from the order. The cause was remanded
to the trial court for further proceedings
1t being explained that the universities will
now have to answer the bill of complaint.
Beer Case Remanded.
John c. Leonard and Samuel G. Stewart
against the Abner-Drury Brewing Com
pany, the National Capital Brewing Com
pany and the Arlington Brewing Com
pany; decree reversed with costs, and
cause remanded for further proceedings;
opinion by Mr.. Chief Justice Shepard. 1t
was alleged by Leonard and Stewart, who
are liquor dealers, that the defendant brew
ing companies had combined in such a
way as to injure them. along with other
dealers in brewery products. The District |
Supreme Court held that they had no prop |
srrNr ty1ta tl1.xT bod rio
ask the court to protect. and that they |
were not in a position to file the suit or
maintain the bill of complaint. The Court !
of Appeals sends the case back for further |
proceedings.
Attorney william G. Johnson represented
sAessrs. Leonard and Stewart
In Favor of District.
Hyter Myers against the District of Co
lumbia; judgment affirmed with costs; opin-
ion by Mr.. Justice Duell. Myers sued to
recover compensation for services in doing
extra work beyond that included In his
employment janitor at the Manual
Training School 1t was held by the trial |
court that the board of trustees had no |
authority to bind the District of Columbia
by any agreement to pay the plaintiff a |
greater sum than the amount appropriated |
for him as janitor. no matter what services
he rendered. The Court of Appeals holds |
that the Interpretation of the law by the
lower tribunal correct, and that 1t
would be necessary for the appellant to go
TO Congress for relief.
Not Within Meaning of Act.
Columbian Correspondence College against
the Postmaster General and others: decree
affirmed with costs; opinion by Mr. Justice
DueH The appellant sought to enjoin the
Postmaster General and the third assist
ant postmaster general from revoking an
existing certificate emitting the college to
mail at the pound rate as second-class mat
ter its publication, The Student at Home.
The Court of Appeals held that the col
lege. a West Virginia corporation, being
conducted for private gain, is not an insti-
tuition of learning within the meaning OF
the act of Congress upon which 1t relied to
win the case. The contention of the college
that the construction placed upon the stat
ute In 1894 by the then Postmaster General
bound all subsequent Postmasters General
was overruled by the Court of Appeals.
which takes the view that the decisions of
former heads of the Post Office Department
were not entitled to such effect.
Lower Court Affirmed.
Peoples National Bank and others