Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-05-01
tlmportant Decisions
SALES.

lshngles from defendant which weF
received by defendant on September
1903, and were unloaded In defendants
yard. sHe had ample opportunity tf
inspect them, but began to sell thens
out Of the yard. and, according to h'i
testimony, made no claim that the
shingles were defective until October
3. 1903, and as plaintiff claimed, not
until November 25th and on that day
only objected to draft drawn by
plaintiff for the price of the shingles
on the ground that the amount of the
draft did not conform to the invoice.
Plaintiff brought suit to recover for
the shingles, and defendant claimed
that the shingles We're defective. Held,
that defendants conduct after receiving
the shingles amounted to an accep-
lance. precluding him from thereafter
objecting that they were not of the
quality ordered. Sisson Lumber Co..
VS.. Iaak, 102 N. w. 946 (Mich.)
WILLS.
Deceased deposited fund with de-
PENDANTS for investment In their Names
and thereafter wrote them letter stat
ing that he had deposited the amount
in question with them, to care for and
invest until his death, and gave direc-
tions for the payment of such fund by
defendants to certain persons, etc. at
ter his death. There was no limit as
to the amount deceased could draw
from the fund during his life. After
his death, plaintiff, administrator OF his
estate brought suit against defendants
to recover the balance in their hands,
claiming that the same belonged to the
estate Held that the direction to pay
to others had no effect before decedent's
death, and not having been executed
in accordance with the statute Of wills.
was invalid as a testamentary DISPOSE
ton Of the fund thereafter, and that
said fund belonged to the estate, and
not to the person designated In the let.
ter De Martini VS.. Allegretti, 70 Pac.
S71 (Calif)
LARCENY.
Respondent was arrested on charge
of the larceny of horse, and at the
time Of his arrest the animal was FOUND
In his possession. Respondent, upon
his trial, showed that he took the
horse up in pursuance of an order from
one K who he supposed had right to
possession of the animal, and that he
(respondent) never claimed the animal
as his own, but had at all times dis
claimed ownership and represented
that the animal belonged to K, and that
he had kept and used the animal IN an
open and notorious manner. There
was no conflict in the testimony on
these points. Held, that defendant is
entitled to his acquittal and. verdict
of guilty should be set aside. State vs..
Seymour. 10 Pac. s25 (Idaho.)
STREET RAILROADS.
Plaintiff was injured in attempting
to enter an electric car thru the front
entrance, which was a dangerous
place to enter, after the signal to start
had been given, and before it had
emerged from barn used for the
housing and repair of it's cars, and
while the car was not to exceed three
or four feet from the barn door, so
that he would inevitably be caught In
passing thru the door, unless he got
inside the car before 1t reached the
barn door, which he failed to do; all
Of which dangers were open. and which
he had better opportunity to observe
than any other person. Held, that ne
was guilty of contributory negligence
as matter OF law, which was the di-
rect and proximate cause of his injur-
les. and he could not recover Kroger
VS.. Seattle Elec. Co. 70 Pac. Ills
(wasn.)
MORTGAGES.
A mortgage on real estate called for
interest at 6 per cent until maturity,
and, for 70 per cent after maturity.
Held, valid under the laws OF Wash