Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-03-08
Important Decisions
1.-THE following notes Of cases are
from the West Publishing Company,
st. Paul. Mimi
CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT

CONSlDEttAIlON OF CONISACI.
One Kane entered into an oral agree
ment with his broker authorizing him
to sell a parcel Of land. On the day
of sale he made and executed a writ
ten agreement promising to pay 5000
of the purchase price to his broker for
the services rendered. Now there is a
statute which provides that any agree
ment authorizing a broker to sell or
purchase real estate for compensation
shall be void unless it be in writing
and upon this statute Kane. in Muir
V. Kane 104 Pacific Reporter, 1853, bases
his appeal from the judgment of the
superior court, claiming that there is
no legal consideration for the written
agreement. The supreme court of
Washington holds that the moral OBJ
legation to pay for the services is suf-
ficient to sustain the subsequent writ
ten agreement to pay therefor. The
statute was intended to prevent frauds
and perjuries. This contract between
Kane and Muir was not one OF moral
turpitude, and the authority to make
the sale is admitted; therefore, the
statute does not apply
LIQUOR SALES TO DETECTIVES
I. j. De Graft was charged by
county attorney in Oklahoma, with the
crime of selling liquors to one B. F
Kane. On the trial it appeared that
Kane had been furnished with dol
lar by the county attorney and told 70
see whether he could secure evidence
of violation of the Liquor laws. He
thereupon visited the place OF business
of defendant and secured bottle Of
Adams Special" 1t was claimed on
the part of accused in De Graft VS..
State, lob Pacific Reporter, 53S. that as
the sale was procured at least indi-
rectly by the act Of state officer, the
state should be estopped from alleging
it's illegality and Furnishing defendant
therefor The supreme court OF Okla
homa seemed. however. not well i'm
pressed with this argument and says:
Can an officer consent to the COM
mission of a crime and by SO doing
free the act of its criminal character?
A private individual may be estopped
in matters relating to his property by
his own conduct Is any one else
estopped by his conduct unless such
other person is privy thereto? Has a
public officer such property rights in
his office and in the enforcement OF the
law as by his conduct or consent to be
able to estop the state in the prosecu-
ton of a crime? II so, whose liberty.
property, character or life would be
safe? There can be but one answer.
No." The court was relieved from
taking judicial notice as to whether or
not adams Special" was an intoxicat-
ing drink by holding that under the
law there existing it Is not necessary to
allege or prove that substitutes for liq'
uor are intoxicating when the prosecu-
ton, as in this case, was for the sale
Of a substitute and not Of liquor itself.
WRONGFUL DEATH.
In Walton & Co, VS.. Burchel, 12l
Southwestern Reporter. 391, the SUI
preme court OF Tennessee was called
upon to determine rather peculiar
question as to the right of an admin
istrator to recover damages for the
death Of minor child. Decedent was
boy under Is years Of age. employed
by defendant and under the direction
Of his own father as foreman. The par
emit was reckless drinking man. with
apparently little care Tor the lives OF
the men under his charge, and, owing
to some act Of his negligence, a pre-
mature explosion Of dynamite occurred,
causing the death OF both father and
son. There was no evidence to show
court held that no presumption OF sur
viyorship would arise. and that the
course Of descent and distribution
should be taken as IL the deaths were
simultaneous. This being true. the con-
tention that the cause Of action for
death OF the child survived to the faith
er alone was held untenab1e. and re-
coyery allowed for the benefit Of the
mother. brothers and sisters.
SECRET PROFITS BY PROMOTERS.
What rights, II any, have corpora
ton and its stockholders against pro-
moters who have, while acting as its
only officers, sold to it property at an
excessive valuation before stock has
been taken out by any other persons
This question was involved in Old Do
minion Copper Mining & S. Company
VS.. Lewiston, % Supreme Court Re-
porter, 634, and the United States SUI
preme court held that as the promoters
themselves constituted the sole mem
bers of the corporation at the time Of
the acts complained Of, the corporation
therefore had full knowledge of every
thing that was being done, and the con-
tract could not be rescinded notwith-
standing the subsequent sale Of stock
to purchasers who knew nothing about
the profits which the promoters were
Il