Wauwatosa news. [volume] (Wauwatosa, Wis.) 1900-1948, 1907-08-10

Corporate Liability For Conspiring 10
Compel Employment of Union Laborers
In the recent ease of Aberthaw Con-
Stactlon company VS.. Cameron, 80 North
eastern Repor(f, 47S, the supreme judi
cmi court of Massachusetts holds that
corporation is mot, on the ground of IL ale-
ing corporation. immune from the con-
sequences of an unlawful combination
with others to compel contractor to
employ only union workmen in the con-
struction of building, under penalty of
strike. As supporting authorities are
cited White V. Apsley Rubber company,
NJ Northeastern Reporter (MassD 800,
and Buffalo oil company vs., Standard
OH company, log New York. G69. II
Northeastern Reporter, S26.
geaoSscSsion dI Goods Sold on INSTALL
m2ut plan.--Thc mere fact that a pur-
chaser of bed on the inStalmeut plan
is sick will not prevent the seller from
reposSes>ng the bed on default, accord
ing to the decision of the Iowa supreu
court in Flaherty VS.. Ginsberg, 10
Northwestern Reporter. 1850. Thc rules
governing the court hays dowr 70 he
that. in reposspsSing II bed conditionally
sold. the mere fact that the purchaser
has suffered some degree. nt4ll health and
needs the he'd does not uESEe its retaking
under the contract wrongful 70 have
such effect. he purchasers needs must be
such as to depriI him of the bed would
be to expose IN to increased sickness
aud suffering, >and such facts must be-
known 10 the person demanding aud re-
moving the bed,
Damages Fer Being Blacklisted. An
emploYe of a union depot company was
injured 10y an engine belonging 10 rail
road company using the depot. On his
recovery he was promised work by the
HSpot company, btG when he reported for
@orR>le was informed that he could not
received WplNyment unless he released
the railroa1> from all claim for damages
on account Off his iuiury.A The depot
company imposed this condition at the re-
quest ct the railroad company's claim
agent. The cmploye thereupon brought
SUIT for damages against the rairoad
company. That lie had a right of~action
vase the opinion Of the Minnesota SUI
prone court rendering the decision. Joycc
vS. Great Northern Railway company.
10 Northwestern Reporter. 97a The de-
ciSlon is based on a statute, but the court
suggests that irrespective the statute
there should be Il recovery.
-, Liability OF Householder for Refusing
podging to Sick Guest.-k householder
who Eetusos lodging to Il person who has
come 10 his house on business. and who
is suddenly taken ill., does SO at his peril.
according to the decision of the Mime
sofa supreme court in Depue VS.. FlHtpnr.
Ill Northwestern Reporter, l. In this
case the guest who was refused lodging
ySAS-discoVered the next morning nearly
frozen 10 death, some distance from his
home. aud he brought action for dam.
ages. AppliCabLe ttsthe facts of the case
was held to he the rule that whenever
{ * MIA. IN, -,
regard to another that il is obvious that
If he does not use due care iu-his con
duet he will cause injury to that per
SON. the duty at once arises to exercise
care commensurate With the situation by
which he is confronted to avoid danger,
and Il negligent performance of his duty
makes him liable for the consequences.
Garage offensive to the NcighbOr-
| hood. "A proposed garage designed to
| accommodate about 12o automobiles of
! large type, TO be used iii part for re-
| pair shop and supplied with large
| portable forge. and in which demonstra.
/ ton cars are to be kept with demon
strators TO run them, is building
offensive TO the neighborhood for dwell
ing houses within such restriction
contained in a deed. Such Is the dcCi
sion of the supreme judicial court of
| Massachusetts in Evans VS.. Foss, 80
Northeastern Reporter. 5S7.
Validity of Foreign Divorce Decree
| Divorce DEGREES rendered in other states
| by Il constructive domicIe are dealt
body blow by the supreme court OF South
Carolina in State VS. Westmorcland. 5G
Southeastern Reporter, G13. In this case
the court holds an avermcnt Of the rec.
ord that plaintiff in divorce suit.Was II
- ttrla a.
was rendered is not conclusive, but that
such question may be inquired into in IA
collateral proceeding, If plaintiff in the
divorce proceeding was not actually
citizen Of the foreign state when he OBJ
tanned the divorce, the decree will not
constitute Il defense to a subsequent
prosecution for adultery in South Caro-