Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-01-19
: 1mportant Decisions;


| COMPENSATION or OEflCUto.
Plaintiff, Il director of the defendant
company was elected treasurer for one
year at n salary of $75 per annum. AT
the expiration of his term. he notified
the directors that he could not again
serve for less than 500 per annum, put
was reelected without any settlement
as to his salary, and continued In tne
employ of the company for the en-
suing year. He then brought this &C.
ton to recover what his services were
; reasonably worth in excess of the sum
OF $Tb per annum. Held, that plaintiH
was entitled to recover what the SER
vices were worth. Stacy VS.. Cherokee
Foundry Co.. 40, S. T., 223 Is. Carr.
DANGEROUS ANIMALS.
Plaintiff was the owner of kid OF
the value Of 81. The defendant was
the owner of a mule and the record
dlscloses that cher name was Maude."
This action was brought on account OF
tie death of the kid at the hands, or
to speak more accurately, at the mouth
and fore feet of the mule. The mule
was at large and entered the pasture
of the plaintiff, which was not guard
ed by a proper fence. where it killed
the kid. Held, that plaintiff could not
recover in the absence Of showing
that the animal was dangerous or VIC
ious, and also that the owner knew
this fact.
Harvey vs.. Buchanan, 40 s. r. PSI
Oia.)
DELAY IN SHIPMENT.
Plaintiff delivered to the Seabord
Railway Company a carload of iron
piping to be delivered at Granite Falls.
The latter company delivered the pip
ing to the defendant company at Lin
cclnton, being the connecting line be-
tween said point and Granite Falls.
About one-half Of the piping was car
ri.d to it's destination by defendant.
The remaining half, while in defend
ants possession awaiting shipment,
was destroyed by fire communicated to
tie car by the defendants warehouse,
which was burned. The delay in for
warding all of the piping on the day
Of its delivery or on the following day,
was caused by the failure Of defend
ant to have sufficient cars for the pur-
pose, about four days having elapsed
between the time the piping was deliv-
cred to the defendant and the time
OF the fire. There was no evidence
as to how the fire originated. Plain
tiff brought this action. Held, that
though a carrier of goods was negli-
gent in failing to forward goods ship
ped, 1t is not liable for the loss of the
goods by fire, where it is not negligent
with respect to the fire, in the abb
sence of evidence that the negligence
In failing to forward the goods was
the proximate cause Of the loss. Ex-
tinguisher Co., VS.. Carolina Railway,
40 S. r. 20s IN. Carr
WAIVER OF CONDITIONS.
Defendant issued to plaintiff a pol
Icy insuring his dwelling in the sum
of $500 for three years, he having paid
the entire premium in advance. The
policy among other things, contained
g. clause, stating that the policy should
he void IL the interest Of the insured
in the property be other than uncon-
ditional and sole ownership, or IT any
change other than by death Of insur-
ed, takes place in the interest, title or
possession of the subject of insurance,
except change of occupants without In
crease Of hazard. Some time after the
issuance of the policy, plaintiff sold
and conveyed the property to one II.
Before selling the property, plaintiff
went to defendants agent, who issued
the policy, and obtained his consent to
plaintiffs retaining the policy as Sc
CURLY for the unpaid purchase money
and after the transfer had been made.
plaintiff again went to the agent and
told him what had been done, when the
agent then consented to plaintiff hold
ing the policy as security. About
year after the transfer was made, the
property burned down and the COM
pany refusing to pay, plaintiff brought
this suit Held, that the provision
making the policy void If the interest
of the insured be other than uncondit-
jonal and sole ownership, ETC., was
waived by the agent, and plaintiff was
entitled to the insurance. Mattingly
vs.. Insurance Co, SO S. W., 577 (Ky.).