Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-02-26
Important Decisions$

LANDLORD AND TENANT.
Plaintiffs were DESTROYS to repairing
the damage caused by fire to build
ing temporarily i'll possession OF sal
wage company, who took possession OF
the stock after the fire under an ar
rangement with the insurance COM
pany. The lessee of the building exc
cuted a written surrender of the build
ing to enable plaintiffs to eject the SAL
wage company 80 that the contractor
to repair and rebuild said building,
may have possession of said premises
from and after ten days from this
date" Held that the surrender by the
lessee gave plaintiffs an immediate
right to demand and receive possess
sion, and the postponement of this
right was a valid consideration for
the promise of the salvage company to
remove the notwithstanding, ct. AL,
VS. Cans. D. L. N. (Mich. Supreme Ct.
December 1909
IMPROPER REMARKS OF COUNSEL
In the case of Missouri, etc, Rail-
way Company VS. Nesbit CTex. Gle.
App So S. W. Rep. S91, which was a
personal injury case, counsel for the
plaintiff remarked in his argument to
small it would not be raised, but that
if they gave one too large the appellate
court would correct it by cutting it
down, so if they erred they should err
on the side that could be corrected by
the appellate court. These remarks
the court stamped with it unqualified
disapproval. After showing that the
power of the appellate court to re-
qure a remittitur in such cases was
not considered in the trial court for
any purpose, the court said The task
of revising jury yerdicts in matters of
amount is both difficult and delicate,
and 1t ought not to be rendered more
so by any invitation to the jury to re-
solve all doubts in favor of large
verdict, thus passing up to the trial
judge and to this court a duty which
is not only primarily but finally
theirs"
LIABILITY OF HUSBAND.
Defendants wife took a spade and
dug holes in a logging road whereby
the plaintiff was injured. The only
evidence connecting defendant with
the wife's tort was that she asked
him where the spade was, that he told
her not to block the road and called to
her to come back after she had start
ed Defendant did not actually know
what she did until two weeks later.
Held: That the evidence did not war
rant the inference that he encouraged
the commission of the wrong by the
wife, and that he can not be held for
the wife's tort because of the marital
relation. nor because he did not by
force prevent her going. (Hooker j.
dissenting holding that the jury were
justified in inferring defendants par
ticipation or encourag cement of the
act of the wife.
Sweezy VS.. Fisher. D. L. NJ, Mich.
Supreme ct. Dec '05.
CONTINGENT FEE.
In McCurdy VS.. Dillon, SO N. w. Rep
TAT. it was held that a contract be-
tween attorney and client, providing
for a percentage of what should be
recovered in divorce case, the mini
mum amount of which was fixed at |
certain sum in case of settlement, was
void as against public policy. Public
policy is interested in maintaining the |
family relation, and where differences
have arisen which threated dis
ruption, the good of society demands
a reconciliation if practicable or pos
sible. and contracts life the one IN
question tend directly to prevent such
reconciliation. If no contract was
made except the void contract, then
the attorney would be entitled to re-
cover what his services were reasona-