St. Johns review. (Saint Johns, Or.) 1904-current, 1910-05-20
LEGAL INFORMATION


An act was passed in Alabama which
prohibited sale Of certain nonintoxi.
eating liquors At any place where tho
sale Of spirituous, vinous, or malt 1iQ-
uors was forbidden by law. In Elder
VS.. State, 50 Southern Reporter. $40. II
was urged that the Legislature had no
power to prohibit the sale Of articles
not Injurious to either the health or the
morals Of the people. and that such a
statute was an unwarranted invasion
Of the rights Of the citizen. On the
other hand, Il 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 Of malt
liquors. The Alabama Supreme court
held the act unconstitutional. conclud.
Ing that these drastic prohibitory laws
are doubtless Intended for the moral
benefit and elevation Of mankind; but
their moral purpose or benehcent re-
suits must not be considered to save
them, when they invade the sanctity Of
the constitutional rights Of our citl.
Gems.
An insurer contracted to indemnify
manufacturing corporation for any
amount under $1,000. which II should
be compelled to pay as damages for pcr.
sonal injuries to Its employees. An en-
ploye Of the insured was injured while
carrying q pitcher alleged to be defcc.
tivs, containing acid. To the insurer
the necessary facts we're promptly com.
municatcd. and the pitcher was intrust.
ed to its custody. BY the insurer the
action of the employe was contested.
but 20 negliscntly that II failed to oher
the strongest evidence for the manu-
facturer, the pitcher. Recovery was
had for more than $4,000. In Attic
boro Mfg. Co. VS.. Frankfort NJ. Acc.
and p. O. Ins. Co.. III Federal Report.
er. 495. plaintiff sought TO recover the
difference between the stipulated In.
demnity and the amount II was forced
to pay through defendants negligence
In conducting the suit. The Federal
Circuit court concluded that an under
taking by ono not an attorney to carry
on the lawsuit OF another being ordi.
narily an undertaking to carry II oa
with due care. Il Ia the basis Of an &C.
ton for tort where negligence has
been substituted for due care knpliedly
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 . statute Of that state providing
taxation OF insurance companies. In
New York Life Insurance Co. W. Brad.
10y, 65 Southeastern Reporter. +33. BY
section 1908 Of tho South Carolina
Code Of 1909. Insurance companies are
required ~ 10 pay . license foe OF
800; (O 10 mako q quarterly return
OF their gross premiums; (O to pay
quarterly an additional graduate u.
censs fee to the state treasurer Of ono
half Of per cent on gross premiums.
by section 1909 the comptroller sener
al is required 10 transmit to the county
auditor In each OF the various counties
q statement OF the amount OF prem
iums or receipts collected therein dur
Ing the preceding year from the dif
ferent insurance companies. and such
statement Is directed to be placed on
the tax duplicate. together with other
items OF taxable property owned by the
companies. Proceeding under this last
provision. o tax amounting TO si7i.s5
was paid under protest by the New
York Life Insurance Company TO the
treasurer OF Abbeville county. and pro-
ceedings thereafter instituted for Its
recovery. II was contended that the
tax was SIMPLY imposed as q condition
to the right OF plaintiff. q foreign In
surance company. TO do business In the
state. The court held. however. that "
was a property tax. and as Il was not |
restricted TO property or money OF tho |
insurance company within the state at |
the time OF assessment. but covered It's |
gross receipts for the entire year. "
was invalid as constituting q taking OF
property without due process OF law.