Year: 1871

Jsrisdicllen Of Coapsy JuAses In Iowa.-Ila.


biiity Of Common Carriers.


No. 90. Samuel O. Smith us. the County OF sac,
Ioica-Eyror TO the Osroa0 Court for fo,caThs lie
an action by Smith against the county upon cou.
pons for interest on certain bonds issued for the
purpose Of paying for the building of court house.
The petition alleges the adoption by q vote Of the
people OF the proposition when submitted to them,
ana the issue Of the bonds according to law, and
the bonds themselves recite the same facts


Tho defence was that the bonds were
delivered TO the contractor by the County
Judge, but that tho contractor dld not
ound the court house, whereby the con.
alteration OF the bonds failed and The securities
became worthless. and that the plaintiff hsA notice
OF the fact before hts purchase Of the bonds The
cause was tried before the Court without o jury.
and the findings were that there fatal irregu.


arties IN the record entry Of tine submission OF the
made until after the execution OF the bond ana q
year after the election. ct which time the County
Of the county, put before lhe transfer
6 Sons ss were Sns to sea ss sa !, ne
County Judge TO the contractor beyond the
limits OF the country and that the contractor gave
one or them to The County Judge as soon as he re-
ceved them, and that no court house was built As
matter Of law resulting from these facts the Court
was ior The County The pain D obeesssd ee s to
the evidence offered TO prove these facts, on the
sG9aaa anS q nm that the
tends sa. noa that n,s where munloIpal corporation
negotiable securities 1t VIII be conclu
siyely s presumed IN favor Of bono Jade
nnder the circumstances which would authorize
them, and that the corporation is estopped as to
s0Sa sa. matters BY the recitals on the face q the


In The record OF the election being true in fact and
under the direction Of the proper ocer the date Of
delivery Of the bonds beyond The limits oi The The
county dld not affect their vadltyi for 1t cannot be
maintained n that the delivery alone (which gives
particular locally to make it it valid or that hat
the the act act Of signing ana sealing when stand.
court house was not 61iit Will be seriously con.
and It submitted that the Court below Committed
the double error OF admitting incompetent evidence
posed to be established BY t6e evidence as admitted
The defendant IN error maintains the view Of the
Court Court below particularly contending that the County
side Its limits. The law requires MIN ITO keep his
once at the county seat'' when properly construed
with respect to the financial affairs OF the comfy,
and authorizes another Officer to discharge nS duties
when absent from the county.


No. 9S. The Western Transportation Company Us.
Samuel A. D0soner-Error to the Circuit Court for
the Northern District Of nhnois.-The Western
Company undertook, as common
carrier, to transport eightyfour bags of coffee rom
New York TO Chicago. but delivered IT, as alleged,
in q damaged condition. BY the bill Of ladiDg the
carrier was exempted from liability for losses hch
might be occasioned BY the dangers Of navigation
on the lakes and rivers In the attempt to enter the
harbor Of Chicago the carriers propeller struck
upon the bottom, sprung Leak and the cofIcs was
damaged. The vessel was stanch and strong and
the officers experienced, and the question
was whether the case was one Of loss by the
dangers OF navigation or by negligence. The
carrier proved by competent evidence, TO his own
satisfaction that the loss was OF the former class,
and then claimed that the affirmative was upon the
shipper to show that it was OF the latter The jury,
under the instruction Of the Court, found for the
shipper and the carrier brings the cause here con-
tsnoing that the Court erred in ruling that it was
the duty OF the carrier 10 show that he
had not been guilty Of negligence. 1t is also In
sisted that the Court, In giving Its opinion to the
jury that the carrier did do all In his power to
prevent accident, erred. and that the jury should
nave been left to their own conclusions upon the
facts as given In evidence The defendant In error
maintains that in such case the carrier must
establish to the satisfaction of the Jury that the
damage was not caused BY his negligence.