Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-06-19
Important Decisions
RAILROADS BAcKING TRAINS.

EAILRO ADS-BACkLNG TRAINS.
Plaintiff, as he started from the
street corner to cross defendants
tracks, looked and listened and saw
freight cars at some distance, but
could not see that they were moving,
and there were no lights on the cars
as provided by ordinance. Before
crossing the tracks and when between
the corner and the track plaintiff again
looked. AS he stepped upon the trace
ing backed down the track at
seventeen or eighteen miles an hour
Plaintiff had judgment in the lower
court, which was affirmed by the SUI
preme court. The court held that
plaintiff was not guilty of contributory
Northumberland VS. Michigan Cen
trail Ry. Co. d. L. n. opinion filed
April 80, 1906. Not yet reported.
COAL. TRAFFIC. DECISION.
The federal supreme court has re-
Gently held that an interstate carrier
cannot stipulate to sell and transport
coal at an agreed price, insufficient to
yield to its published freight rates after
deducting the cost of purchase and de-
livery. In other words, railroad cam
not give a rebate TO itself on coal car
ried by it, Justice White said: If by
the mere fact of purchasing and selling
merchandise to be transported, car
rier is endowed with the power of dis
regarding The published rate, it be-
comes apparent that the carrier pos
sesses the right to treat the owners
of like commodities by entirely differ
an r,tla c n the pXiSt-
ence of such power in its essence
would enable d carrier, if he chose to
do SO to select the favored persons
to whom he would sell. thus giving
such persons an advantage over every
other. and leading to a monopolization
in the hands of such persons of all the
products as to which the carrier chose
to deal. Indeed, the inevitable result
of the possession of such right by
the carrier would be to enable it, as it
chose, to exercise the power. to con-
centrate in its own hands the pro-
ducts which were held for shipment
along its line, and to make 1t, there
fore. the sole purchaser thereof, and
the sole seller at the place where the
products We're to be marketed; in other
words to create an absolute monopoly.
New York, etc. Ry. Co. VS.. Inter-
state Commerce Commission, 26 Sup.
CT. Rep. 272.
MASTER AND SERVANT.
Plaintiff was employed at operating
q hoop machine on which there was
no guard to protect the operator, and
called the attention of the foreman
to the defecH on three different occa-
sions, and each time the foreman
promised to put a guard on. Plaintiff
continued to operate the machine until
he was injured. Defendant had verdict
in the lower court which was reversed
upon appeal. Held That whether the
employee was guilty of negligence in
to work on the machine aft
err defendants promise to put guard |
on was question which should have
been submitted to the jury by the |
trial judge.
D. L. News. Mich. Sup Crit. opin-
ion filed April 80. 1906.
USE OF AUTOMOBILE
In the case of Wright VS.. Crane re-
Gently decided by the Michigan SUI
preme court and reported in 1o6 N. w.
Rep. II, it is held that, while the driv-
er of an automobile had the same
rights in the highways that driver
IF a horse has, yet neither has the
right to use his respective use of To-
without regard to the rights
Of others travelling on the highways:
and that it was for the jury to decide
whether it was negligence for the own
er of an automobile to run it at night
On a public highway without display
ng a headlight.