The Nezperce herald. (Nezperce, Idaho) 1900-1957, 1905-01-26
JUDICIAL DECISIONS

A fund which has. under the order
II the court. been deposited with the
clerk IL held. In Dale Va. Brumbly
(Md-). "a L. r. A. ia. not 10 become
subject to attachment by the deter
minatio OF the one who Is entitled to
receive 1t. and an order OF the court
that II be paid to him.
The minority OF one holding policy
OF Insurance ON a dwelling house Ii
held. In Mead vs.. Phoenix ms. Co.
(kan.). "a L. Il. A. 10. not TO exempt
him from complying with stipulation
tho recovery OF any loss should be
maintainable unless commenced within
twelve months after the tire.
A carrier is held. In Lake Erie 4 w.
R. Co VS.. Holland Qnd).. IS L. II. A.
94S. not TO be able TO absolve Itself
from its duty to furnish safe ears by
exacting contract requiring the ship
per to inspect and select his car, where
the shipper Is induced 10 take the risk
by safe. but false. appearances. while
the carrier knows that the car selected
Is unsafe.
Persons using horses on the highway
In close proximity to gas well. and
who see an agent of the owner at or
near 1t. are held. In Snyder VS.. PhiIa-
delphla Co. (W. Val. 63 l.. II. A. 500.
TO have the right to presume that he
will not open IL without warning. or
first looking for travellers on the road.
and not be guilty OF eontributory neg
ligence In falling 20 turn away from
II. or to give warning OF their presence.
The right OF a bicyclist TO hold
town liable for injuries caused by
defect making a highway unsuitable
for ordinary travel Is sustained In Hen
dry vs.. North Hampton IN. H.. "a l.
X. A. 10. under statute making towns
liable for injuries to any person trav-
cling upon a dangerous embankment
upon a highway by reason OF any do
feet or want OF repair OF such embank-
ment or do fective ratings. which rem
ders II unsuitable for travel thereon.
A conductor who elects from a train.
a short distance from the station. with
In the yard limits. and near dwelling
houses, a man who. although appar.
emily intoxicated. Is able 10 walk and
carry on intelligent conversation. Is
held. In Korn VS.. Chesapeake x D. r.
Co 60. @. A. 9th c.. SO L. X. A. s72.
not TO be guilty OF negligence. although
he has been informed at the station
that the man Is not 1T TO travel. where
The latter. when asked for his fare, re
fuses to pay II. or 10 tell his destlna-
ion.
IL the public policy OF the State for.
bids the limitation OF carriers llablI-
ty by contract. II Is held. In Hughes
rs. Pennsylvania X. Co (Pa.. % l. r.
A. 5l3. that the courts OF that Stats
will not enforce a contract for such
imitation as to property negligentiy
injured within the State while being
shipped on through bill OF ladlng into
he State from another, where the con.
ract was made and where It Il valid.
rhe subject OF conflict OF laws as TO
arrier's contracts Is discussed In
tote to this case.
A provlso. In a statute dealing with
insurance policies issued In the State.
hat every policy containing a refer.
nee to the application must have a
orrcct copy thereof attached TO II. Il
ED. In Johnston IS. Mutual Life InS J
%. (Sfass.). 63 L. X. A. $3.50. 20 have ,
o bearing on policies issued by for. =
Ign companies In other States. al .
iofch they were upon lives OF persons :
In the State where the stat =
to was passed. A note to this case
views the other authorities on conflict :
laws as to contracts OF Insurance.