The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-06-02
GASES OF INTEREST

UASEO UT INIEflES I| GRAMMAR AND RHETORIC NOT SUBSTANCE OF WILIi--A will re-
 cited: Knowing and BIeve to Be in
 my Rite mind knowing the condition I am in to save trube1 and Expence I. s. make my first and Last Willard
 Testament | will or Be- queth to my son D. $1OOO And I |
 Will to or Bequeth to my daughter O. $1000.00 And I Will or Bequeth to my sun 2. $1000.00s to Have at my Death after all, Debts is paid and funeral
 Expenses is paid and Toom Stone is Put to My grave My household goods
 to Be sold and Personal PIopty to Be i sold at Public sale horses wagon Bugy harness and some farm inpIf-
 ments Flows and tools and all grain
 on hand and hay And the farm in D. County Missouri to Me Rented For I the term or 2 years to give time to Be
 sold and the G. County Land to Be Rented for 2 years to give Time 10 Be Sold After the children gets their shers and All Expenses is Paid want or Will or BeQuetll an Equal Shar to Each Grand Child Living who Names is as stated,
 tthese all to have an Equal Shear, of the Remaining Sum I appoint G. to
 Exicut this Will this is my Last Will |
 my cloths these children is to have
 their Shear as they Becom of Age
 Zach to have the pictures etc., fol-
 lowed by provisions giving the Bible
 and other small items. t.This I sign
 knowing what Sine and Am in my Rite Mind and Last Will and Testa- n1ent.s The Supreme Court of Mis- l souri held that the will was not void I for uncertainty. but was susceptible. of construction and contemplated the | fc7Te raf 1 ty. Griff1th vs. Witten, 161 South
 western Reporter, r708.
 ATTORNEYS INTEREST IN SUIT
 Has an attorney such an interest I in a suit that his control over it. is absolute, or are the principal rights retained by the client This ques- l tion arose in the case of Andrews vs.
 Haas. 14A New York Supplement Re- porter, 106O where the plaintiff conn plained that the defendant retained him to bring an action. and agreed to pay 25 per cent. of the recovery; that l the defendant later refused to prose- cute the. action, wherefore plaintiff
 sues for his share of the expected re l coyery. The court in dismissing the complaint, said that the relation of attorney and client is peculiar, in l that the law permits the Termination thereof in a manner not recognized as l to other contracts. It holds that the.
 
 and may, for reasons of his oWu dis charge the attorney arbitrarily, and with liability for the legal services
 rendered, and that an attorney cam. not control the clients disp ositfon of his own property under 9 penalty inn posed upon the client.
 DOCTRINE OF BONA TIDES IN
 INSURANCE.--In the case of Smith vs. Arserican Insurance Company 4ss had insurance on a house which he owned. The policy permitted concur rent insurance, but provided for a pro rata payment in ease other insur- ance was taken on the same proper l ty With the insurers consent, the owner later sold th 6 house on land Iacontract, which provided that the purchaser should keep it insured, 1 leave the policy with the vendor, and that, in case of loss, the proceeds should be paid to the vendor and in dorsed on the contract as payment | thereon, ba1auce to be paid to the purchaser. The purchaser in posses sion, without notice to the owner, pro cured insurance in her own name on her interest in the house and on her furniture, and, at a. time when the amount due on the land contract
 was greater than the amount of the policy, the5house was totally destroy
 ed The Supreme Court of Michigan
 held that the owners recovery on the first policy was not limited to loss or damage of his interest in the prop erty. The court said: Neither the
 plaintiffs nor the defendant were ever
 parties to any other or different con- tract. Whether the second policy was good or bad as to the vendee of the plaintiffs is not a ques-
 ton necessary to decide. Plaintiffs had no interest in the second policy,
 because their vendee had already car
 ried out her agreement to keep the property insured for their benefit.
 The policy could
 not be changed to the harm of the plaintiffs, without consulting them. by l their vendee attem pting to get insur-. ance upon her interest," in the prop 1 erty."
 WHAT CONSTITUTES AN INTER- STATE "TRIP 2=That passenger ] pays fare to a station within the state
 wherein he starts and leaves the train Il at such station, does not determine
 such trip to be interstate. He may ! be interstate passenger at such time,
 and his intention seems to be the der l terninative factor In recent case l decided by the Supreme Court cfs 1 Mississippi, the plaintiff sued a rail-
 road company to recover demages for
 election. Plaintiff was a publisher. l and received a mileage book in con
 sideratfon of advertising. The book l provided that it should be used only i for .transportation between points e1s- tirely within the state, and should not
 be good for any part of an interstate i trip He boarded the train at G.
 within the state for Memphis and the book was accepted for passage as far
 as S., a point in the state near Mem 1 pFais When the train reached S., l plaintiff got off and purchased tick 1 cts from that point to Memphis re 1 boarded the train, and rendered these l tickets to the conductor. The con- l ductor refused the tickets unless
 plaintiff paid cash fare from G. to S., and on his refusal he was compelled l to leave the train. The court held