Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-10-10
Important Decisions
[The following notes OF cases are
from the West Publishing Company,
st Paul Mimi

! [The following notes OF cases are
from the West Publishing Company,
st. Paul, Mimi
CONFLICTING JURISDICTION.
An intricate legal tangle is attempt
ed to me unraveled in Illinois Central
Railway Co. V. Sheegog. III Federal
Reporter, 756. Sheegog. as admins
traitor. brought an action in the Union
county circuit court of Kentucky
against the Illinois Central Railroad
Company and others for wrongfully
causing the death of his decedent Pc
tition for removal to the United States
circuit court on the ground of separ-
able controversy and fraudulent join
der OF parties defendant for the purpose
of preventing such removal was de-
MED. The defendant Illinois Central
Railroad Company thereupon filed a
transcript of the proceedings in the
federal court. which denied motion BY
plaintiff for remand TO the state court.
This left the cause apparently pending
in both courts and la both courts it
was prosecuted 10 judgment. In the
state court plaintiff recovered judg-
ment for $3.50, while in the federal
court judgment was directed for de-
PENDANT No appeal was taken from
the juG gment OF the federal court but
defendant prosecuted a writ OF error
from the Judgment of the state court
to the Kentucky court of appeals, and
from that on to the United States SUI
preme court both of which tribunals
affirmed the decision of the Union
county court, and held that the petition
for removal was properly denied. De-
PENDANT then flied in the federal circuit
court an application for injunction g
restrain enforcement Of the Judgment
of the state court. The circuit court
discusses the question as TO the validity
OF its own Judgment and holds that as
il was not directly questioned by APP
peal or proceedings in error that It IS
not void. Notwithstanding the decision
of the supreme court on writ Of error
prosecuted from the state court. But.
conceding this 10 be the fact. ii still
remained true that plaintiff had a valid
judgment in the state court ana
as the questions presented u the SUI
preme court We're the same as they
would have been had the writ Of error
been taken from the judgment in The
federal court. it was held that defend
ant was judicially estopped from rely
irg ON the judgment OF the federal
court a : a bar 70 the enforcement Of
that OF the state court
LIABILITY OF MASTER.
Defendants servant, who was a
caretaker of his island in Lake Cham
plain. was Instructed 10 keep of tres
passers In obedience to such instruc
ton. he refused to permit piaintin 70
tie up his yloop To defendants dock
during storm. by reason of which the
s!oop and her cargo were lost and
plaintiff and his family thrown into the
sea and injured In Ploof vs.. Pu.nana
40 Atlantic Reporter. 20. HE supreme
court of Vermont. concludes that the
servants act was within the scope of
his agency and done for the masters
benefit In reaching this conclusion.
the court says that when the serv ant
cast Off the plaintiff : rope he was do
ing an act within the scope Of his en-
ployinent and one which under ordi-
nary circum stances would be proper
and lawful but in the peculiar cir
cumstances then existing was improp-
er and unlawful and the defendant
was responsible whether the act was
done careIessly or wiltul!y, unless il
was done from the caprice OF the ser
want. II did not appear, however. that
the servant had any personal interest
70 serve or that in the slightest degree
h. turned aside from the line of duty
as ne then understood it. This case
was up at former term in II Atlantic
Reporter. 1ss. where a decision over
ruling q demurrer 10 the declaration
Mas affirmed
INENCUSABLE HOMICIDE.
The case Of state vs. Brecount. l01
Pacific Reporter. 7s3. presents some
rather novel questions Of law and fact
in regard to liability for homicide. Al
the time Of the accident resulting in
Death. a band concert was in progress
on u temporary stand erected in one Of
the streets of Arkansas City. where
defendant was employed as mem Der
Of the fire department. A large crowd
Of people having gathered in the street
TO listen TO the music. the fire chief.
who was intoxicated and had been off
duty all day concluded it would be fire
sport to turn in a false alarm and
for che supposed purpose of reaching
the fire After communicating his
ideas TO defendant. the two proceeded
to carry them out The chief turned
IN a fake alarm. defendant hitched up
the chiefs horse, and they started down
the stree, toward the crowd as fast as
they could get the horse to run, de-
PENDANT driving and the chief whipping
the horse Their vehicle struck a
buggy, which overturned. injuring one
Of the occupants so seriously as TO