The news & observer., 1905-10-26
DIGEST Of OPINIONS
Cases Decided by Su-
preme Court.
The Turkey" Case, in Favor of De-
fendant, the Union County Liquor
Law and Other Cases of Less
General Interest.
General Interest.

The cases determined and opinions
rendered by the Supreme court on
Tuesday were of comparatively little
importance or State interest
The much reported Turkey case"
where one man shot and killed an
other mistaking him for a turkey and
was convicted of manslaughter on the
ground that he was at the time hunt
ing on land of another in violation of
a local statute, was decided in favor
of the defendant.
The strict laws of Union county
relative 70 the sale of Wh .skcy are
intact. through another decision, al
though II was contended seriously that
the law of 1905 repealed the law of
1903. The court says that the laws
de- not conflict. AS it is, they merely
strengthen one another.
Owing to Fair week and the rush of
matter at that time and to unavoid-
able circumstances Tuesday the di-
gests OF the decisions which the paper
has been publishing were not made so
far as those decisions rendered Tues
day of Fair week and are published
day late in this instance. All Of
those decisions will later appear and
it is hoped that the digests will be
published weekly in future.
Digests of this weeks opinions fol-
L. j. Perry. Appellant, vs.. Farmers Mu-
tuaI Fire Insurance Association;
from Union; Affirmed.
Plaintiff was a member of the de-
fendant corporation and in a former
action obtained judgment for loss
by fire which, on appeal, was sus-
tanned by the Supreme Court 1t APP
peared that the original policy was
oh
Branch, and that the latter, having
ceased to exist, the liabilities thereof
had been assumed by the Union
Branch. Judgment was therefore di-
rected by the Supreme Court that the
amount be paid by the assessment
upon members of that Branch. The
judgment not being paid, plaintiff sued
the corporation and NJ. II. Phifer and
James McNeely, individually as presi-
dent and secretary of such Union
Branch. The complaint alleged that
the duty of the president was to issue
an assessment against the members;
that demand was made and refused ;
that since the rendition of the judg-
ment the officers have paid other
claims; that moneys had been paid to
said Phifer and McNeely by way of
salaries that the said officers have
since met and attempted to dissolve
such branch and form another corpo-
ration. The plaintiff had paid monies
both before and after his loss and
asked a niandamus to compel the levy
of an assessment and for personal
judgment against said Phifer and Nc
Many. The corporation filed no an
swer and the individuals deny that
there was run such a corporation as
the Union Branch that it was not
sued by the plaintiff and no judgment
was rendered against it. That the new
corporation has no connection III any
way with the defendant.
At the close of the evidence the
plaintiff withdrew his petition for
mandamus; there was non suit in
favor of Phifcr and McNally and
plaintiff appealed.
The Court fully discusses Mutual AS
sociations of Insurance and confesses
itself puzzled at the complications re-
yeaied by the pleadings. but states that
the parties to the contract of plaintiff
at time loss occurred are liable in any
event. However. as to Phifer and Nc
Nally it is
Held: 1. Where in a Mutual Associa-
tion it is provided in the bylaws that
losses are to be paid by assessment on
members. an aggrieved party must
Continued on Page Five.)