Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-05-27
{lmportant Decisions!
CITY ORDINANCES


owners of billboards erected prior to
the passage of the ordinance, exceed
ing certain dimensions should pay an
annual license fee of so cents per
square foot and in default of such
payment, the boards should be torn
down. In a suit to have the ordinance
declared void, it was proved that
hereunder complainant would be re-
quired to pay an ANNUAL license fee of
$4,000 when its gross income was
but 100000; that all complainant's
signs on which a license would have to
be paid were erected under the ordin-
ances. of the city as they existed at
the time the boards were built, and
that in some instances the city re-
ceived a license to have the privilege
of erecting them. Held, that such
ordinance was not only void for un-
reasonableness. but as prohibitive of
complainants business. Cunning Sys-
tenn VS., Chicago, 70 N. e. 1895 Qll)
LIFE INSURANCE.
An applicant for life insurance in
formed the soliciting agent that he
would be- unable to pay for the policy
for some time after it was issued. and
the agent stated that he would settle
with the company and that the appll-
cant could pay him later. The policy
was issued, and sent, with directions
to account for the premium, and the
agent. who received it after the death
of the applicant, retained it for few
DAYS. and returned it, the premium
never having been paid by anyone.
The application provided that the pol
lev should not be in force until ac-
t,lal payment of the premium during
the lifetime and good health of the IN
s,,red and the policy declared that the
contract was completely set forth In
the policy and application, and that
none of dts terms could be varied eN-
cept by agreement in writing by the
comnanv's officers. After the appli-
9cant's death, his widow brought suit
to recover on the policy. Held THAI
the agreement with the agent dld not
constitute payment of the premium
and she could not recover. Neff VS..
Metropolitan ms. Co., IS N. %. l04l
Ind.)
guessing contest instituted by
newspaper company by which persons
are invited to deliver to the company
so cents each, "a cents of which being
navment for subscription to the
newsnaper. and &c cents for the privl-
,epe of making guess upon the total
vote for a state officer VINO Is 10 pe
chosen at an approaching election, the
guesser coming nearest to the aetuai
vote cast to receive the money prize
from the fund equal to ope-tenth
thereof, and other nearest ones TO re-
ceiye from the fund money prizes, held,
to be a lottery and an unlawful enter
prise.
stevens vs. Times-star, % N. 3D.,
1868 (ohio.)
BANKS.
Plaintiff furnished his insolvent
brother money to buy stock in bank,
and took an assignment Of the stock
to secure the advance; the bank not
being advised of the money being fur
nished by another, nor OF. the assign
rnent of the shares The bank extend
ed credit to plaintiffs brother, and the
brother died insolyent, indebted to the
bank. AS a defense to an action by the
plaintiff. after the death of his broth
er, to compel the transfer of the stock
to him, and for dividends declared
thereon, the bank charged that the
plaintiff and his brother formed con-
spiracy to defraud it and sought to
compel plaintiff to surrender the Shares
for cancellation. Held, that the fact
that the plaintiffs act was calculated
to give his brother a business stand
ing in the community to which he was
not entitled was insufficient to sustain
the charge of conspiracy to defraud the
bank.
Shields VS.. City Bank, so s. E., sol
On. c.
CARRIERS.
This is an action brought for the
loss of goods received by the defend
ant common carrier, for transport
tation. Held, that the presumption, in
case of loss of goods by a carrier, is
that it was thru it's negligence.
Everett VS.. Norfolk Co., so S. e., 557
IN. CO