Dakota farmers' leader. (Canton, S.D.) 1890-19??, 1910-06-17

wv
All act was passed in Alabama which
prohibited sale of certain nonlntoXl'
eating liquors at any place where the
sale of spirituous, v%inous, or malt llq-
uors was forbidden by law. In Elder
vs.. State, so Southern Reporter. $40, 1t
was urged that the legislature had no
power to prohibit the sale or articles
not injurious to either the health or the
morals of the people, II that such d
statute was an unWarranted invasion
of the rights Of the citizen. On IN"
other hand, it was asserted That IN
order more thoroughly to prohibit the
sale of malt liquor, known to be an
IntoXicant, and to safeguard against
evasions Of such law. the state had
power to prohibit the sale of any beVer'
ages containing the ingredient or mat
liquors. The Alabama Supreme court
held the act unconstitutional, conclud-
ing tina these drastic prOhiDitory laws
are doubtless intended for the moral
benefit and elevation Of mankind; but
their moral purpose or benencent re-
suits must not be considered TO save
them, when they invade the sanctity or
the constitutional rights OF our cltl-
zcns.
An insurer contracted to indemnify
a manufacturing corporation for any
amount under $1,000, which 1t should
be compelled to pay as damages for per
sonal injuries to its employees. An EN-
plOye Of the insured was injured While
carrying a pitcher alleged to be defec-
tive. containing acid. To the Insurer
the necessary facts were promptly COM
municated, and the pitcher was intrust-
ed to its custody. BY the insurer the
action OF the emplOye was contested,
but so n~egligcntly that 1t failed to of1er
the ong evidence for the manu-
facturcr, the pitcher. Recovery was
had for more than $1,000. In Attic
boro Mfg. Co. VS.. Frankfort VI. Acc.
and p. G. ms. Co, Ill Federal REPORT
err, 495, plaintiff sought to recover the
difference between the stipulated In
demnitv and the amount 1t was forced
to pay through defendants negligence
in conducting the suit. The Federal
Circuit court concluded that an under
taking by one not an attorney to carry
on the lawsuit Of another being ordi-
narily an undertaking to carry 1t o.
with due care, 1t is the basis or an ac-
ton for tort where negligence mas
been substituted for due care Lmpl1edly
undertaken and agreed upon. The de-
murrer to the declaration was over.
ruled.
The Supreme court Of South Carolina
was called upon to determine the valid
ity of a statute of that state providing
taxation of insurance companies, III
New York Life Insurance &C VS.. Brad
ley, 65 Southeastern Reporter, ABB. by
section 1908 of the South Carolina
Code of 1902, insurance companies are
required CD to pay a license fee 81
800; GU to make a quarterly return
Of their gross premiums; 90 TO pa!
quarterly an additional graduate IL
cense fee to the state treasurer or one
half of / per cent on gross premiums
BY section 1909 the comptroller gener
al Is required to transmit to the count!
auditor In each of the various counties
a statement of the amount of prem
iums or receipts collected therein dur
ing the preceding year from the dl1
ferent insurance companies, II sutE
statement is directed to be placed or
the tax duplicate, together with Other
items OF taxable property owned by the
companies. Proceeding under this las
provision, a tax amounting to $l71.3E
was paid under protest by the New
York Life Insurance Company to the
treasurer of Abbeville county, and pro
cccdings thereafter instituted for it,
recovery. 1t was commended that tn,
tax was simply imposed as a condition
to the right Of plaintiff, a foreign in
surance company, to do business in the
state. The court held, however, that II
was a property tax, n as 1t was not
restricted to property or money Of the
insurance company within the state at
the time Of assessment, but covered It's
gross receipts for the entire year, II
was invalid as constituting a taking OF
property without due process OF law.