Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-08-07
Important Decislons3
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.


PENDANT on one OF It's sleeping cars In
the capacity OF porter. The engine to
| which the sleeping car was attached
exploded. and the engineer and fire.
man were killed and plaintiff injured.
AT the time plaintiff was employed by
defendant, he signed written contract
OF employment, one of the terms OF
which Was that the company should
not be liable for injuries to him.
Plaintiff brought this suit for damages
alleging gross negligence on the part
Of defendant. Held, that his contract
releasing the railroad company from
liability was a complete defense, with
out regard to whether the companys
negligence was gross or slight. Chi
cago railroad vs. Hamler. "a N e. 705
Qll)
BROKERS.
Defendant was tenant In common OF
certain premises. of which he wished
TO DISPOSE. and employed PLAINTIFF to
sell his interest for him. Plaintiff at
tempted to negotiate a sale to defend
ants CO. tenant, but was unable to get
any definitd price or terms from de-
PENDANT. Finally, at plaintiffs sugges-
ton, the co-tenant himself saw DEFEND
ant and settlement was reached, ny
which defendant conveyed the larger
part of the premises to the co-tenant
but retained a small tract himself Tor
his own benefit, and according to his
own desires and preconceived plan.
Plaintiff brought action to recover hta
commission. Held, that the deal as
consummated amounted to sale with
in the meaning Of the contract with
nlaintiff for commissions. and that
whether plaintiff was the procuring
cause Of the sale was question Tor
49, i,,r1 Bnrdon VS.. Briquelet, 104
N. W. SO (Wis.)
DEBTS OF HUSBAND.
p,,,ntiff and her husband delivered
to defendant an instrument signed Dy
both of them. 1t consisted OF an "
binary promissory note for $l,ooo anu
contained a clause to the erect, thas'
If the same was paid certain per-
sonal property pledged as co''aferai
security for all other present and iu-
ture demands Of any and all kinds OF
the said bank against the undersigned,
should be returned. AT the time OF the
execution OF this note the bank had In
its possession the individual no.e of
r;aintifY's husband for $3.50, and after
the $1,000 was paid, the bank, refused
to return the personal property, claim
ing the right to hold the same as cot-
lateral security for the payment Of the
note of the husband. Plaintiff brought
this action for the conversion Of the
property. Held, that the bank had no
right to retain the property as security
for the Individual note Of the husband
and plaintiff was entitled to recover
Bank vs. Southworth, "a N. Il. I'll
Gn.)
+ BANKRUPTCY-PR
plaintiffs, as trustees in bankruptcy
Of the estate Of M. A., brought this
action to set aside as preferences GER
him to the defendant On different
cember 5, 1902, M. A. duly executed
and delivered to. defendant several
mortgages upon land then owned by
him, and which he continued to own
until he was adjudged a bankrupt.
Each of the mortgages was given to
secure loan of money to the full
amount thereof, made at the time Of its
execution and delivery. The mortgages
were not recorded until October 20,
1903. On November "a, 1908, M. A.
was duly adjudged a bankrupt and
plaintiffs were appointed as trustees of
is estate. Held, that whether the same
constituted preference within the
meaning of the federal bankruptcy
law must be determined by the facts
existing at its inception, and not at the
time Of it's record and there being
nothing to indicate that M. A. was in
solvent at the time of the execution of
the mortgages in question, plaintiffs
cannot prevail.
seager VS.. Lamm, 1o4 N. w.
(Minn,)