Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-03-27
ee~A~11~@~~@~MN@@@@~~~0@~
ZImportant Decisions{
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
NEGLIGENCE.

NJGCLTGCNCE.
Plaintiff was returning to his home
one evening about 10 o'clock OH car
of the defendant. He had informed
the conductor where he desired to
alight. The car was an open one, with
seats running across and steps on
each side. When near the middle on
the block, the signal by ringing the
bell. was given by the conductor for
a stop at the next cross-.street, where
plaintiff was to alight. Immediately
upon ringing the bell the plaintiff
arose. went to the edge of the car, put
one foot on the step. the other on the
platform and his hand on the rail.
While in that position there was a
sudden jerk of the car, which plaintiff
claims threw him from the car, In
consequence of which he received an
| injury. Held, that it not having been
shown that the defendant was in any
| way responsible for the sudden jerk
! of the car, no recovery could be had
for the injuries sustained. Conroy VS..
Detroit United Railway, IL, d. l.. NJ,
IT'S (Mich.).
CONTRAcTS-FRA
A county supervisor, who was about
| to retire from office, purchased mater
ia and bridge pling far in excess OF
any possible need of the county. The
| lumber was ordered in car lots, and
delivered to the county, and bill, not
| itemized, was given to the supervisor,
who presented 1t to the board. which
allowed 1t on his recommendation
When the supervisor retired from Of
flee, the county bridge fund was over
drawn in an amount exceeding $780,
900 The profits of the firm which the
material and pling We're ordered were
| in some cases 70, and in others 30, per
cent Held that q finding that the
contract was fraudulent and collusive
was warranted, and therefore void.
| Nelson VS. Harrison county, 102, N. W.,
| 1877 Gowa).
WAGERING CONTRACT.
A. insured her life. naming as benef-
iciary her son-in-law j. Prior to AS
death, i. assigned the policy to O.,
| who had no insurable interest in AS
| life. The policy was taken out in pur-
suance of a prior understanding that
| the assignment was to be made by e..
to c., who was the only real party In
interest. c. paid all the assessments,
and was recognized as assignee by the
company. Held in an action on the
policy by p. to the use of c., that the
insurance was a simple wager on AS
life, and, as such, was void. Insurance
Association VS.. Norris, 10, w. N. c.,
24s (Pa.).
| BANK CHECK.
| On September 81 plaintiff Endorsed
and deposited with defendant bank, as
| l. pstfnr
miles away. Defendant forwarded the
check to the bank on which 1t was
drawn for payment, but the check was
| lost Defendant did not make inquiry
as to the check for more than ten
days Plaintiff was not notified until
October Is that the check had not
been paid, when he procured dupli-
cate and on October 25 Endorsed
same and gave 1t to defendant, but
| payment was refused on the following
day by the bank on which 1t was
drawn, the drawer having absconded
without leaving sufficient funds to
meet it. During the time between Sep
| tember 81 and October rs the drawer
| had balance at the bank, except on
one or two days, and seemed to have
| been in good credit. Held, that de-
PENDANT did not use sufficient diligence,
and plaintiff was discharged from liza
bility on his Endorsement of the origin
al check. Aebi VS.. Evansville bank,
| 1902 N. W., 329 (Wis.).
DIVORCE-ALIMO
In March, 1908, divorce was grant
ed to the defendant, and she was also
given the custody Of the only child
of the parties and awarded perma-
nent alimony Of SIS per month. Com
| plainant remarked a few days after
the divorce, and claimed that because
of this he had lost the affections Of
his daughter and his necessities had
| increased, and he asked for q modifi-
cation of the decree OIL the question
duced by the lower court Defendant
Of alimony, 1t being materially re-
appealed to the supreme court Held.
that the fact that complainant had re-
married and thereby lost the affection
Of the child was not such a fact as
will justify the reduction of alimony.
Smith VS. Smith, II, D. l.. N, 75G
| (Mich.).