The Washington times., 1917-11-17

|
ings, and, in the absence of custom
II need not signal their approach
Louisville and Interurban Railroad
Company v. Csntrell, 1914 S. W. (Ky.)
$50.
Negligence on the part Of the
driver of an automobile Is not i'm
putable to his guest In the car: nor
does one who accepts an invitation to
ride In an automobile thereby engage
In such a common enterprise or Joint
venture with the driver that neither
would be liable to the other for an
act of negliEenee~Jacobs v. Jacobs,
"A So. Ua) so2,
A person driving on a public high
way, especially in an incorporated
city, has = right to presume and to
act upon the presumption that the
way is safe for ordinary travel, even
at night, and he is not required to be
on the lookout for extraordinary
dangers or distractions to which his
attention has not been called.-Jacobs
V. Jacobs, IA So. Ua-) s92.
Where the automobile purchaser
used the car for nearly q year con-
SNeANAgt SCAAPA1AAAAb NAeN Aho NAANCAl
was defective SO as to render the ma
chine worthless. and the manufac-
turer, during a large part OF the time.
was attempting to remedy the de-
fects, the purchaser could not, as q
matter of law, be held to have waived
the right to rescind.-J. L Case
Threshing Machine Company v.
Raehal 1s4 s. w. (Texas) 41s.
-
Although plaintiff was guilty of
gross negligence contributing to his
injury in attempting to cross q rail-
road track at q private crossing with
out looking or listening, he Is never
theless entitled to recover something
where company is negligent in view
Of Acts, 1910, c. 1857 providing that
contributory negligence shall not bar
recoyery.-YaEoo and Mississippi Val
ley Railroad Company ". Williams, "A
So. Caiss.) s36.
The storage of cars on q. side track
near to, but not encroaching upon, q
public street, Is not negligence which
renders the railroad liable for in.
juries to an automobile driver at the
crossing, though that fact may be
considered in determining whether
INC "A1 OpNAe eNCN wan NAC NoAN
under the circumstances, and whether
the driver was contributorily negli-
Eent.-Chicago, Indianapolis and
Louisville Railroad Company v. Prohl,
115 N. z. und.) 962.
As q general rule, It Is the duty
of the driver OF an automobile to
maintain a speed sufficiently slow and
to have such control OF his car that
he can stop within the distance in
which he can plainly see an obstruc-
ton or danger ahead. But that rule
does not apply to q case where
dangerous situation which the driver
of the automobile had no reason to
expect suddenly appeared Immediately
in front of the car.-Jacobs Y. Jacobs,
"a So. (La-) 992.
Plaintiff, desiring TO purchase an
automobile, went to defendant corpos
ratIon's office. where he found a per-
son in charge, who said he would
sell plaintiff q car. Thereafter plain
tiff, finding the same person in
charge, paid him the first payment.
receiving a receipt, signed by a rub
Der stamp OF defendant. Held, that
plaintiff had q right to assume that
an agent with authority, and, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary
could recover his deposit on proof
OF failure to deliver the car.-Sher-
man V. Auto Bankers, 164 N. Y. S.,
sos.
Revised Statutes. Texas, 1911.
article 1910. providing that every
mortgage given by the owner Of
stock of goods daily exposed to
sale in parcels in the regular course
OF business, and contemplating a
continuance OF the possession OF the
goods and a control OF said business
by the sale OF the goods by the own
er, shall be deemed fraudulent and
void, does not apply where the prop
erty covered by the oral mortgage to
a bank was automobiles, which the
bank permitted the owner to keep on
display and to demonstrate, but
which he could not sell without au-
thority from the bank for each par
ticular sale, since such sales were
not in the regular course of bust
ness.-BoFder National Bank V. Coup
land, 241 F. (U. s., 355.
The driver Of an automobile is not
answerable in damages for personal
injuries inflicted upon his guest in
the car. as result OF an accident.
where the facts are: The driver had
Inquired about the condition of the
thoroughfare before entering Il, and
was Informed that It was all right:
the car. while travelling at a mod |
crate speed on = prominent street in |
city ran into an open canal ex-
tending across the thorouRhfare |
without any guard rail, barrier, red |
light or other warning Of danger: |
the glare Of an electric light be- |
tween the driver and the canal pre-
vented his seeing the danger until Il |
was TOO late to stop his car while |
gong at an ordinary speed; the