The Elbert County tribune., 1905-11-02


tershed and. for the maintenance Of
the public health. has cleaned it's bed.
is held, in A. l.. Lakey Co. vs. Kaia-
mazoo (Mich.l. 81 l.. X. A. 931. mot to
be liable to a riparian owner for fall
ure to remove distractions placed in
the stream by another riparian owner.
so that the water Is damned back 10
the injury OF the former.
A sale of goods to be delivered ~. o.
b. cars" is held. In Vogt vs.. Shiene-
beck (Wis.), 67 l.. Il. A. 756. to i'm
pose on the seller the duty OF procur-
ing the cars to carry out the contract.
in the absence of clear and satisiao-
tory evidence of custom to the con
trars. known to both parties TO the
transaction at the time of making the
contract.
The appropriation of public money
for use by private corporation or
ganised to care for destitute children
is held. in Hager VS.. Kentucky Chill
dren's Home society tKy). 67 l. H.
A. SIS, not to be prevented by CON
stitutional provision forbidding the
giving or ioaning of the states credit
to any corporation.
To excuse n person for assaui,ins
another under the belief that he is u
third person, upon whom an assault
would be justified. IT is held, in Crab
tree VS.. Dawson tKy.), Ga j.. r. A. 56s,
that he must exercise the highest de
gree OF care practicable under the cir
cums.ances to ascertain whether or
not the person whom he is about to
strike is in fact the one whom be
believes him TO be. The question OF
mistaken identity as justification for
assault is the subject of note to mis-
case.
The right OF o carrier to limit. by
special contract his common-iaw ha-
bility and thereby to exempt himself
from liability for any loss resulting
otherwise than by the negligence az
misfeasance of himself or his sery-
ants. is sustained in Russell VS.. Erie
Railroad company IN. ]. Err. & App
G7 l.. h. A. 433.
In case OF breach OF a carriage
contract in a state whose constitution
prohibits the carrier from contracting
to limit its commonlaw liability. II ~
held. in Adams Express Co. vs.. Walk
or tKy). 81 l.. X. A. 412, that the
carrier cannot, in the courts OF MAT
state, have the benefit of contract
valid where made in another state
limiting such liability.
Where the same fve persons com
pose both the directorate and the body
of the stockholders of corporation.
1t is held, in Crichton VS.. Webb Press
company G.a) 81 l.. r. A. 76. that two
OF these persons cannot. by joining
with a third, enter into contracts with
the corporation or fix their own saia
ries. or vote allowances to themselves.
over the protest OF their two other as
sociates.
A railroad engineer. In signalling
the engineer TO back the engine tor
the purpose Of effecting coupling.
Is held in Alabama G. s. r.. Co. vs.
Baldwin (Tenn.) 81 J.. A. a. 34V. 10
act in his capacity as representative
of the master. and not as a fellow
servant of the brakeman, who Is at
tempting to prepare the cars for the
coupling. so that the master viii be
liable in case he acts negligently to
the injury of the brakeman.
A period of three months wilh'p
which to bring an action upon iudg-
ment rendered in another siste.
against bona fide resident OF the
state establishing such period. upon a
cause OF action which accrued Esose
than six years before the action upon
the judgment is brought, is held, In
Lamb VS.. Power River Live Sfock
company &C. C. A. sth CO 81 l.. r. A..
55S, to be unreasonably short, and 10
render the statute providing it invalid