Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-10-27
SUPREME COURT pisPosEs or
LARGE NuMoER OF CASES At
TERM JUST CLOSED.
SUBSEQUENT NEGLIGENCE
CASE FROM SIOUX CITY
Majority Of Court Holds Railroad Not
Responsible For Aeeidsnt-Im portant
Ruling on Question Of Damages For
Damming strsam--court Divides on
Line Fence Question.
Special to Times-Republican.

Des Moines, Oct. 27.-Altho the SUI
rendered decisions in fifty-four appeal
cases they still have under considera-
ton still larger number of matters
submitted and not passed upon. A good
many OF the opinions filed related to
cases submitted at the October period.
which shows that at least in many
cases quick action is secured.
AS usual, the last collection of opin-
ions filed included those on which the
court was not able to agree with
unanimity. There were four cases in
which dissenting opinions were filed.
An opinion that will be read, when
printed. by all the lawyers. is that in
the case of Bourrett VS.. c. & n. w.
railway from Sioux City 4 boy who
ran out on the tracks of the railroad
to pick up baseball which had gone
foul from the nearby baseball park
was injured. The court found in this
case the doctrine of last fair chance"
or subsequent negligence. Upon this
question Chief Justice Sherwin dis
coursed to the extent of eleven sheets
of paper and Justice LAID uses fifteen
sheets in writing dissent in which
Justice Weaver joins. The court held
in short, that actual knowledge of the
danger to the injured person must be
shown in order to place the defendant
in position of responsibility for the In
jury done. The minority held that
reasonable means of knowledge is re-
garded as equivalent to knowledge
generally when there Is duty to investi-
gate" and in a case like this 1t was
the duty of the employees of the. COM
pany to keep lookout so as not to
injure any one at the crossing
A Drainage Cass.
The court divided again In a case in
volving matter of principle in a
Woodbury. county case, that Of Tacka-
berry VS.. Sioux City Service Company,
ct al, and Justice Evans discussed 1t
to the length OF twenty-nine pages.
while. Judge Weaver wrote short
dissent The question which divided
the court this time was whether or not
in case where number of defend
ants were sued for causing an obstruc-
ton to a stream, resulting in damage
to property, the defendants could de-
mand separate trials and Il separation
of the cases The court held that they
can make such demand and each OF the
defendants stand on his own footing.
1t il pointed out that the plaintiff
need not prove the precise damage
done by each separate defendant where
a number have contributed to the in
jury, but may prove the proportionate
damage and get verdict accordingly.
Judge Weaver in dissenting took the
opposite view and added:
LAS matter of general principle
parties who ol,struct the stream should
be held to intend the natural conse-
quences of their acts. and if OBJ
structs it at one place. b at another
and C. at still another, each knowing
as he is bound to know that the unit
ed effect of their several acts will
work to the material injury of proper
ty exposed to overflow, 1t Is certainly
a somewhat surprising Illustration or
the fnefficiency Of the law If there be
no union of liability on the part of the
wrong doors, and he whose property Ia
thus flooded must assume the burden
OF showing what particular fraction OF
his loss is traceable to each obstruc-
ton even tho but for the existence OF
all no damage would have been done.
In so holding 1t seems to me we are
sacrificing substantial right to empty
FORM
In the case Of Matson VS.. Poncin,
from Wright county, the court divided
over a question Of line fence, which
shows that farmers are not the only
ones who fail to agree about line fences
and surveys. The majority opinion was
by Justice Ladd and the dissent by
Justice Weaver.
In the case of Kinkead VS.. Peet, from
r Inn county snnfhor long decision and
equally long dissenting opinion showed
how the court divided over a matter of
dividing up debts and rents in a COM
plicated case. Justice Weaver wrote
the majority opinion and Justice Evans
1 tho minority