The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-03-16

Supreme Court Decisions 4
y 4 \ Il \ 4 4 X 4,
William q. 'schafer, plaintiff and
respondent, W. Pontus Olson and Gin.
ton d. Lord. defendants and Pontua
Olson. appellant. -,
J. Plaintiff. q resident Of Illinois
entered into a contract through cor
respondence, agreeing to sell to de.
fendant Olson lands In this state, nc
place having been agreed upon fol
tho closing Of the deal. Defendant'a
agents. In a letter accepting PLAINTIFF
oher. among other things said, I'VE
inclose a warranty deed which you can
execute and have your Elkhart bank
zen to the Peoples State bank Of La.
kota and we will take same up." Plain.
TIN acted on such suggestion and not
MY sent to the Lakota bank the deed
but also a sight draft for $4,000 in a
letter containing specific instructions
TO deliver same on payment Of such
draft and to remit by New York OF
Chicago exchange.
Held. that h bank was plaintiffs
agent for the collection of such draft
and the consumation of the deal by
the delivery Of the deed.
2. One B. acting on defendants be-
half. gave to the bank a check drawn
On BIS account therein, in payment OF
such draft. Such check was accepted
Dy n bank and the deed delivered,
out no remittance to the plaintiff was
maze. BIS accoun at the time show
ed a balance of about $4,000. Eight
days thereafter the bank ceased doing
business.
Held. there being no proof that the
bank was insolvent when the check
was given and accepted, that the Civ.
ing and receiving of such check con-
stttuted a payment of the draft.
tSyllabus by the court)
Appeal from the district court of
Nelson county. Templeton, J..
tiff defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Opinion by Fisk, ].
Joseph F. Fawcett. plaintiff and re.
spondent. We. Bayard e. Ryder, de.
endan and appellant.
In an action for negligently placing
plaintiff, a patient Of the defendant
physician. upon OF subject to contact
with a hot water bottle. causing in
jury to plaintiff by burning, and while
plaintiff was unconscious after an on
GRAFTON upon him for appendicitis, IL
is held:
1. The question of negligence was
Tor the jury to determine under all
the evidence.
2. The negligent acts of the nurses.
DEFENDANTS employees in a private hos
pltal run for profit in connection with
the practice Of medicine and surgery,
by a physician and z as owner
and proprietor thereof. renders the
physician hospital owner liable as a
master for acts of servant nurses re.
sultlng In injury to a patient who has
for hire entrusted himself to defend.
ant for professional treatment and
hospital nursing. -.
3. Evidence is sufficient to sustain
the 3ury's finding that PLAINTIFF was
injured by coming in contact with a
Of defendant.
4. Sec. 1921, r. c. 1905, provtd.
lng that written requested Instructions
snail be indorsed by the court as given
or refused, and then SO given or re-
FUSED without modification except BY
consent of counsel. does not require
the court to give a. long series Of re.
quested instructions in the order as
requested; o does the statute pre-
vent the court from instructing upon
ene theory Of thu opponents case in
~ecti with each separate re-
guessed instruction, as to the subject
matter of each request, that both sides
OF the case may be covered without
repetition, when all matter embraced
n requests is covered by instructions
formulated by the court or when the
requested instructions are. given in
terms as requested.
5. Certain requested Instructions
were properly refused.
s. Certain assignments on instruc.
lions not considered. because not
based on any exceptions taken and
MED to the oral charge given and
therefor.
Z. Motion for directed verdict for
defendant made at the close of the
case was properly denied. as, sub.
conflict existed in the evidence
carrying. the issues to the Jury for
determination.
lSyllabus by the court.)
from a judgment for plaintiff en-.
tered in the district court Of Dickey
county, Allen, j., defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Opinion by Goss. j.
Louis Ruelh. administrator Of the
estate of Louis Ruehl. Jr.. deceased,
plaintiff and appellant, VS.. LidSerwood
rural Telephone company. q corpora
ton, defendant and respondent.
l. where, in the making of an i'm
provement. 1t is manifest that injury If
ilkeiy to result unless due precautions
are taken. A duty rests upon him who
causes the work to be done to see that
sucn necessary precautions are taken
2. Where a telephone COMPANY
contracts with n laborer to dig holes
in the doo yard of a house, under q
contract to furnish a telephone to the
occupant OF such house, and into
which hole someone else is to place
the telephone pole when the proper
Tune comes. 1t is a legal duty of such
company to properly safeguard such
noie. n 1t Is immaterial whether
the laborer who digs the anne is a
servant or an independent contractor
d. There Is a distinction between
the liability for injuries resulting from
the work which Ia entrusted to he
done, and the liability for injuries oc-
by wrongful and careless
acts done in connection with some col.
lateral work or matter.
=: There is a natural presumption
.nat every n Will act with due care,
M 1t cannot, therefore, be imputed
to a plaintiff as contributory neeli.
gence that he did not anticipate chi.
pable negligence on the part of the
defendant. .s
5: 1t Is, not contributory neRlirence
as q matter Of law, for a mother ia
allow her children to play in the yard
while a telephone is being put in the
hesna' and the necessary poles are
most the question is one for the iurv
and not for the court. ~
s. In a suit under the statute fo,
damages to the parents occasioned bv
the death by wrongful act Of a child
OF three and one-half years Of age
where there is proof that the child
at n time Of the accident. was n
| GOOD health II IN MT