Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-04-10
klmportant Decisions

DIVORCE CONTRACTS.

DIVORCE CONTRACTS. =.
Appellant procured q divorce from
interviewer on the ground of cruelty.
After the decree and divorce. the par
Ties entered into a written contract
whereby. In consideration OF $1,000
cash, and the execution and delivery
of bond for $4,000, plaintiff released
and discharged all claims and causes
OF action she had or claimed to haVc
against any and all persons for the
alienation of her husbands affections,
and agreed not TO bring or cause to
he brought amy action or proceeding
against any person for the recovery of
damages on that account. This account
was brought against defendants for
the purpose of recovering damages for
The alienation of her husbands affec-
lions; and in defense thereof plain
tf's former husband INTERVIEWED. set
ting up the written contract referred
to. In answering the intervening COM
plant, plaintiff alleged that the con-
tract was entered into In consideration
and In pursuance of a prior agreement
made while husband and wife, to the
effect that II plaintiff would withdraw
q former action Of divorce pending.
and lnterpose one upon the ground Of
cruel treatment. the interviewer would
make no defense thereto. and would
pay plaintiff the sum stipulated in the
contract. Held, that the contract,
while valid upon its face, according,
to the facts pleaded in the answer IT.
true, was void as against public pol
Icy. But plaintiff attacks the validity
of the contract for the purpose Of en-.
abling her to violate its terms by pros
ecuting the action against defendants.
Under such circumstances, the law
will not assist her to thus take adj
vantage OF her own wrong. McAllen
VS.. Hodge, 102, N W., TOT (Minn.).
INJURIES TO TRAVELLER.
A roadway running thru the defend
ant village was In good condition
about 1s feet wide, with a grass plot
about feet wide between the edge
of the roadway and a ditch for carry
ing off the surface water. running pa
alel to the road. Plaintiff, on a da'k
night, while driving team consisting
of two horses and one wagon, drove
into hole in the ditch caused by
drain dischargIng water into the ditch.
Held, that the village was not liable
the duty Of the plaintiff to use that
part OF the road which had been pre-
pared for use to reasonable width.
King VS.. Ft. Ann, 70, N. e.. 4S1 IN.
W.
CONTRACT OF HIRING.
Defendant contracted to employ
plaintiff as q travelling salesman, and
to pay him IN per cent commission
on all his sales, and to permit him
to draw for his support 800 per week
and such expenses as he might in
cur, and in addition to pay him 10 per
cent Of the net profits that defend ant
should realize In his business; 1t be-
ing provided that the commissions and
the 10 per cent of the net profits were
not to be drawn by plaintiff until thu
termination of the agreement, exc apt
ing the sum which plaintiff was allow
ed to draw for his maintenance and
support, which sum and travelling eX-
pellses should be deducted from the
amount of commissions and 10 per
cent of the profits at the termination
Of the agreement. Held, that this did
not entitle the plaintiff absolutely to
500 per week during the term o.! the
agreement, but that this weekly pay
ment was an advance on account of
the commissions and percentage of
profits. Menage VS.. Rosenthal, 70, N.
E., 537 (Mass.).
ENLIGHTENMENT.
P. was elected treasurer Of the
township of M. and qualified, giving
the required bond. Shortly after his
election he appointed the respondent
his deputy, and respondent took the
oath of office and acted in an official
capacity under P. until his arrest for
embexzlement. He collected all Of the
money due the township, deposited a
portion of it in the bank in the name
of p, the treasurer, and kept 4 por-
ton in his possession, paid township
orders partly by money not deposited
and partly by checks on the bank sign
ed by him in the manner authorized
by p. 1t was admitted that lie had
embezzled but respondent co1tended
that verdict of not guilty should be
entered, because p, the treasurer, was
not authorized to appoint a der uty, or
to permit him to draw from the bank
funds credited to him in his official
capacity. Held, that one who con-
sents to be agent, and thus acts to
obtain money which he EN- oezzles,
cannot avoid responsibility upon the
ground that the principal could not
lawfully appoint, or he accept an APP
pointment as such. People VS.. Sand
ers, II, d. l.. NJ, 876 (Mich.).