Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-06-26
@s@3@&0@"""W'V y
Slmportant Decisions
Ar ROADS

| with a shipment of cattle on transport
| tation issued to him by the initial
carrier; and on arrival ut the Junction
| of a connecting carriers line, intes-
| tate's cars We're set on a siding some
| distance from defendants depot. Pend
| ing the making up of the train on
which his cars were to be forwarded,
| intestate went along the track to eX-
/ anime them. and was killed while pas
! sing around the ends of certain other
cars on a switch track, ell route to the
caboose in which his transportation
was to continue. Held, that intestate
was not a trespasser on defendants
side tracks when killed. and plaintiff
could recover.-Elgin Railway VS.
Thomas, IA, N. e, 109 Qll)
VOLUNTARY PAYMENT
Plaintiff brought this action to re-
cover upon a claim against the estate
Of his deceased sister for money which
| he paid to a certain physician for pro-
| fessional services rendered to the de-
ceased. The physician performed pro-
| feSsional services for the sister from
1 October, 1899, to October, 1901, the
date of her t,eath and that he had a
| claim against the estate of the sister,
but that it was paid by the plaintiff.
| Plaintiff testified that the doctor want
ed some money and he paid him. He
| paid 1T without request, and as a mere
| volunteer. Held, that one who volun
tarily pays the debt of another, with
out his request or promise of repay
ment, cannot recover therefor of him.
| -McGlew VS.. Dade, so Pac. (Calif)
| GUARANTY.
/ Plaintiff oppliad to dafap6opt'S III
band for payment of his note, but he
was unable to pay it; and, without
any agreement in regard to the note,
plaintiff then loaned defendant 500.
Thereafter, without any release of de-
PENDANTS liability for the 500, or other
consideration, defendant guaranteed
the payment of the note. Held that
the guaranty was void for want of
consideration. --Lagomarismo VS.. Gil
ami, 80 Pac. sos (Calif)
CONTRACTS.
In an action for breach of a contract
alleged to be shown in certain letters
and telegram, it appeared that the
first letter was an offer by the defen-
dants to furnish materials at Il stated
price. The second was d letter from
plaintiffs accepting the offer at the
price stated, but fixing time certain
foX delivery of the materials. The third
letter did not accept the provisions as
to delivery, but informed plaintiffs
that they would be advised at once
of the time in which the defendants
would be able to fill the order. Six
days later, by telegram, and letter,
plaintiffs were informed that defend
ants could not fill the order as required.
Held, insufficient to shoW a contract
between the parties Bingham VS..
Bridge Co., so Pac. 7Ss (Wash.)
BROKERS.
Defendants being willing to sell GER
tain real estate for $4,000 net plain
tiffs, who were real estate brokers' no.
titled them that they had purchaser
able and willing to buy at $4,000. and
that they would sell the property for
that sum, with the understanding that
they were to have the $500 as their
commission Defendants, having learn
ed the name of plaintiffs prospective
purchaser took the matter up directly
with him, and completed the sale on
the terms proposed. Held, that plain
tiffs were entitled to recover the
amount agreed Norris VS.. Byrne ct
al so Pac. sos (WashD
MASTER AND SERVANT.
Plaintiff, who was employed by
defendant to clean engines in round
house, was injured by the negligence
of another employe in running another
engine over the pit in which plaintiff
was at work, and humping such en-
CINE into the engine on which plaintiff
was working Plaintiff was injured
and brought suit Held, that such 9TH
or employe was not a fellow servant
and plaintiff could not recover. Mullln
VS. Railroad Co., so Pac. SIS (Wash.)