Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-01-06
Important Decisions}
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
WILLs-CoNSTRuCTIOn


will gave to test ator's son certain
bonds, which another was to hold In
trust for him, and provided that, if the
interest on the bonds would more than
support such son. the overpus of in
terest should be paid to certain grand
children of testator, who, In case of the
death of the son without issue, should
receive the principal of the bonds and
whatever should remain of the inter-
est Held, that only the interest on the
bonds was subject to be used for the
support of the son, and the son did not
take title to the bonds themselves In
any way Inconsistent with the validity
Of the gift over. Hall VS. Brownlee, u
NJ E., 131 Gnd.).
EQUITY -PASSAGEWAYS.
Defendant owns two lots on opposite
sides Of an alley, and built hotel on
the lots, connecting the two portions by
passageway over the alley, fourteen
feet above the ground, connecting the
second and third floors Of the build
logs Consent to erect THE passage
way was granted by the common coun-
ell. Complainant OWNS a building adj,
Joining a portion of the hotel and rum
ring back to the alley, AND filed this
bin to restrain defendant from con-
structing another passa geway, and to
compel her to remove those now built,
alleging that the tenants are annoyed
by the odors from the hotel and THAT
the passageway interferes with light
and the free circulation of air In the
alley. The passageway and hotel was
erected twelve years before the bill was
fled and complainant knew that such
passageway was to be erected, ana
made no objection, and desired the
erection of the hotel. If the passage
way is torn down the building OF de-
PENDANT would have to be abandoned
as a. hotel; and the proposed new pas
sageway creates no greater interier-
ence with light or circulation or air
than the old one. On the showing
made that to tear down the passage
way would cause drreparaible damage
to defendant in order THAT complainant
might obtain little more light and air,
held. that complainant has delayed his
action too long, and that no relief
should be granted him in equity, but
he should be left to his remedy for
damages. Washington Lodge VS.. FTel-
inghuysen. II DIN, 603 (MichD.
cONyEYAN CES- CONSTRUED.
Defendant acquired title by warran-
nv deeds to certain lots. At that time
there was situated on the lots par
tally completed building in the process
OF erection. There was also situated on
the land conveyed and on an adjoining
lot the cut stone and structural IRON
work intended to be used in the COM
the conveyance was made 1t was m
tended that the building would be COM
pleted. Held, that the title to the ma
terial passed with the land.
Byrne VS.. Warner, IL D. l.. N, GOT
(Mich.)
CONTRACTS = APPRENTICESHIP
Plaintiff was apprenticed to defen-
dant for three years under an agree
ment that there should be a reserve
fund for plaintiff at the end of the
term, subject to forfeiture. if for any
acts of disobedience defendant should
deem it best to discharge plaintiff.
and that plaintiffs refusal to work the
same number Of hours as other men i'm
the shop should constitute just cause
for dismissal. Plaintiff was asked to
work at night, and complained of the
cold condition OF the shop, and that his
feet were in bad condition on account
of the cold. Defendant told him that
he could work or not as he wished but
he would have to work thirty days ex-
ira if he returned. Held. that the evil
dence did not conclusively show an
act of wilful disobedience, that defen-
dant could not impose an additional
term of service. as it substituted new
contract, and that under the contract,
the defendant had no authority to de-
termine what constituted an act of dis
obedience.
Bradley VS.. Perkins, II D. L. N. ga
(Mich.)