The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1908-04-14

meat
2 Abutting property owners with
knowledge that such paving Is beine
done with the intention OF levying "a
Especial tax upon them for payment of
lthe same. and permitting such Inn
lprovement to be done without obiec-
ton TO the council. and knowingly re-
lceiving the benefits. when afterwards
they seek relief in eunity to escape
payment therefor. win be deemed TO
have ratified the same and estopped
from setting up any irregularity except
when 1t goes TO The extent Of iurisdic-
ton.
3. When the estimate OF benefits
lis referred TO a board OF appraisers
and afterward approved by the coun-
lcil the remedy OF one who considers
himself unfairly assessed Is to apply
for redress to such tribunal. and fail
ing so to do. will not be permitted in
an action in equity TO overcome such
finding especially on veview in the
Isupreme court when the referee folnd
that there was no proof TO show that
lappraisement or assessment was in
anyway ineQuitable or unjust.
Expensive Bale Of Cotton.
A case that has cost the litigants
no small amount of money is that of
John Massoner, and others, versus Liz
zie Bell IN December, 1899, Lizzie
Bell sued John Missioner and Sam
lGarvin for bale of cotton and secured
Judgment TO the amount Of S34 25.
Other matters were drawn in and Il
was tried in the United States court
lat Paurs Valley. Later IT was appealed
Ito the United Stetes court Of appeals
land transferred from that court to
the state supreme court. The juds-
ment OF the lower court was affirmed
I'm an opinion by Judge Turner.
The syllabus of the opinion follows:
1. Where a motion to require plain
tiff TO make his complaint more defi-
mite and certain is not preserved in
the bill of exceptions, this court can
mot review the action Of the trial court
in passing upon such motion.
2 Where there is a sale of goods
to be paid Tor in cash on delivery pay
ment and delivery are concurrent acts.
In such case, payment is condition
precedent TO passing title to the ven
dee and If on delivery OF the goods,
payment is refused and the same are
appropriated by him to his own use,
IAN dGAiQH dEdthni MN iOA lnG NuAha
ivill lie, by the vendor.
syllabus by the court
Lover Court Upheld.
Another case decided by the chief
Justice S. that of Bracken VS.. Stone,
/, from to district court of Kingfisher
county, ling for restraining order,
and the decision of the lower court Is
upheld
l. A petition in an application for
a restraining order. which seeks to en-
: Join an alleged threatened trespass.
such as could be fully compensated
in money damages, and which con
cludes. ito the irreparable damage of
this plaintiff" but which fails to state
that defendants are insolvent, is fatal
" defective and a restraining order
issued thereon was properly dissolved
on motion supported by affidavits
! showing tie Golvency of the defend
ants.
Railroad Case Affirmed.
The case of the Frisco against
! Jameson IS a Washita county case in
: volying the loss of shipment of goods
{ in transit An opinion by She chief
justice affirms the decision of the
lower court.
l. Carriers Receipt state
ment on a receipt'o or bill of lading Civ
en- by a railroad company that goods
, were received in apparent" good or
der is not conclusive evidence TO that
effect, but It is competent TO show
+ {they we're not in good order.
2 Carriers Receipt not Conclusive
Z -Omns Probandi--By such receipt ol
I bill of lading issued by the initial car
? rier as agent for the delivering carrier
. however. the onus is put upon the de
5 livering carrier to show they were moi
IN the condition stated in the receipt
g. Kew Trial-ln a Doubtful cass
; Where the evidence IN a case leaves
= IL doubtful whether the particular car
{, rier who is sued for a loss OF goods
S or another from whom that carrier
o received the goods is liable, the su
/ preme court will not disturb the find
+ lings in the court below
G 4. When any competent evidenci
T. has been submitted for the considera
G ton of the jury reasonably tending 4
r lprove the issues. il is proper 10 over
r rule a demurrer to the evidence o
= ldeny a motion for peremptOry instruC
> tion, for such a condition, under proI
d er instructions from the court, tn
S lcause should be submitted to the iur
II for their determination.
{ 3. Where several packages are dc
l. liyered in one shipment and under
h single entire contract to a carrier TO
e shipment not only over its own line
e but also a connecting line, in an a'
'r tion by the consignee against the dc
Is livering carrier from which he r.
p ceiyed a portion of the consigne
Ie goods. for injury and loss thereof o
g the Introduction by the plaintiff (
8 the bill OF lading issued by the In
a. tial carrier to the effect that nh
s. goods were received BY it lin appa