Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-12-26
TVO0V0V00O09s %'WSO00VV~S ?
{lmportant Decisions;
w11,I.s-coNsrRucr1c

A will devised 1.-The lot owned by
me and situated on the corner" being
120 feet OF lot thirteen of letter NJ Sub
division" Lot 10 Of M. subdivision was
in fact only los feet in depth, but was
generally understood by the public. and
was represented In an official way, to
be 140 feet in depth. The track owned
by the testator was 1904 feet in depth
and included lot 13. This tract was
occupied by her as an entirety, and was
covered with continuous buildings
Held that the will devised the entire
tract without Limitations to the bound
aries of lot 13 as shown by the Official
plat.
Louis VS.. Sherman Bros. ct al. SUI
preme court Uowa) July, 1905.
INJURY TO EMPLQYE.
Plaintiff was employed as commoi
laborer for the defendant company and
was engaged In tearing down a bricl
wall, while 30 engaged he was strucl
by falling timber, that had been dis
lodged by an employe of sub-con-
tractor of the defendant company
Held, that the doctrine Of q safe place
to work has no application whore thu
negligent act during work by an EN-.
ploye of third person for which the
employer is not liable.
Penner VS.. Vinton Co., N. w. Rep
104. page 1856 (Mich.)
I'm DELICTO" "IN'PAM DELICTO'
Plaintiff sued to recover $1,000 which
he alleged had been fraudulently OBJ
tanned from him by the defendants I'M
der pretense that a certain foot race
had been fixed" whereby he was in
duced to back the loser. He was told
that all that was wanted was for him
to bet the money which would be fur
nished by a member of the gang, who
protested to be unwilling that his
ownership OF the money bet should be-
come known. Incidentally the plain
tiff was induced by gentle and guileful
arts to put up $1,000 Of his own money
not as bet, but to be used to make q
showing by the stakeholder in the
event that a count of the stake money
should be called for. OF course, the
race did not stay fixed" and the
plaintiffs money found it's way into
alien hands. Held that he was entitled
to recover back his money, for, not
wlthstanding he was "in delicto," by
consenting to act in such a deceitful
attitude, yet he was not in "inpari
delicto" with the conspirators.
Wright VS.. Stewart, 100 Fed. Rep. COS
(Texas.)
INFANTS EMANCIPATION.
Where a person prior and subsequent
to his majority was permitted by hi.
parents to carry on q business of sell
ing papers from which he earned more
than $4,000, which amount he turned
over to his mother with his father.
consent. who invested the same in hel
own home and father exercised no con.
troll over minor or earnings, but assist
ed him and his other sons in subord
mate capacity in the sale Of such pa
pers, such facts were held to be suffi
cient to constitute emancipation during
his minority.
Jacobs VS.. Jacobs, supreme court o
Iowa. July. 1905.
COMMUNICATIONS STOPHYSICIANs
The plaintiff was injured by beinI
elected from one Of the defendant
trains. and the defendants local ply
stefan was summoned to attend him
not by the plaintiff, but by an agent o
the defendant, and the sole purpose o
the summons was that for the benefi
of the defendant, the physician nigh
ascertain the plaintiffs condition. I
was held that no practicing physician
shall be allowed to disclose any conf.
Dental communication properly in.
trusted to him in his profession ca
pacity and necessary and proper t.
enable him to discharge the function.
of his office.
BATHS VS.. Chicago, etc, R. Co., 1ot
N. w. Rep. 543 Gowa).