페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

defects, the lessor, under maxim caveat emptor,

BANKS AND BANKING. need not disclose faults he knows to exist, although he cannot fraudulently conceal such de- See Criminal Law, w 369; Indictment and Infects.-L. J. Smith Const. Co. v. Mullins, 201 formation, w128. S. W. 602.

Where grading machinery was rented “in the II. BANKING CORPORATIONS AND present condition thereof," there was no ex

ASSOCIATIONS. press or implied warranty as to its condition. --Id.

(D) Officers and Agents. C33 (Ark.) In action for rent of machine, Ono 54(3) (Ark.) Acts of officers of bank with court erred in charging that measure of recova capital of only $50,000 in lending $30,000 to a ery would be difference between value of ma

canning company in which they had stock, chine when delivered to defendants and its which had a capital of $10,000, and which convalue when returned.-McDonald v. Hill, 201 tinually operated at a loss, though they beS. W. 509.

lieved it would ultimately pay a profit, were so

reckless as to constitute negligence for which BANKRUPTCY.

they were liable to shareholders.-Magale v.

Fomby, 201 S. W. 278. III. ASSIGNMENT, ADMINISTRATION, Om 55(1) (Ark.) Equity has jurisdiction indeAND DISTRIBUTION OF BANK

pendent of statute to enforce liability of bank RUPT'S ESTATE.

officers to the bank and shareholders for neg

ligent operating causing loss.-Magale v. Fom(C) Preferences and Transfers by Bank by, 201 S. W. 278. rupt, and Attachments and Other Liens.

(E) Insolvency and Dissolution. Cu 184(2) (Mo.App.) Trustee in bankruptcy w76 (Tenn.) In a proceeding to wind up afis, under Bankruptcy Act July 1, 1898, § 67e, fairs of bank, where receiver petitioned for authorized to enforce the rights of creditors of leave to compromise claims against stockholdthe bankrupt to set aside liens which are void ers and directors, the inquiry was whether it under the state law for want of recording.– was practicable and advantageous to comproStewart v. Asbury, 201 S. W. 949.

mise.--Knafil v. Knoxville Banking & Trust Co., Under Bankruptcy Act July 1, 1898, § 67e, 201 S. W. 775. the effect to be given an unrecorded chattel In a proceeding to wind up affairs of bank, mortgage, where possession of the article was where the receiver recommended a compromise, not given the mortgagee, must be determined and creditors of the bank, the master, the under the law of the state in which the case chancellor, and the Court of Civil Appeals were arises.--Id.

in favor of the compromise, it was not abuse of 1843) (Mo.App.) Under Rev. St. 1909, $$ discretion to order it to be made.-Id. 2861, 2887, and 2889, seller of motorcar, who am 84 (Mo.) To warrant conviction under Rev. received as payment notes reserving title and St. 1909, $ 4585, making it an offense for owngiving him chattel mortgage, is not, having er, agent or manager of a private bank to rewithheld same from record, entitled to record ceive a deposit knowing owner of bank to be same and take possession of car as against insolvent, it is not necessary that accused creditors whose claims had meantime arisen, so should have had ultimate authority in managwhere debtor became a bankrupt few days after ing the bank, if he was in fact intrusted with seller took possession. his lien is subject to the duty of receiving deposits, since he was attack by trustee in bankruptcy.--Stewart v. then the agent of the owner.-State v. MunAsbury, 201 S. W. 949.

roe, 201 S. W. 100. On 215 (Tex.Civ.App.) Contractor's bank- ww85(1) (Mo.) The assistant cashier of a priruptcy does not deprive state district court of vate bank cannot be convicted of the offense jurisdiction to distribute funds in owner's defined by Rev. St. 1909, $ 4585, as to receiving hands among mechanic's lien claimants and deposits when insolvent in the absence of alsubcontractors.-Gordon-Jones Const. Co. v. legation and proof that he knew not only that Welder, 201 S. W. 681.

the bank was insolvent, but that its owner was

also insolvent.-State v. Munroe, 201 S. W. (D) Administration of Estate.

100. 263 (Ark.) Agreement between two creditors to bid against each other at bankruptcy

III. FUNCTIONS AND DEALINGS. sale until certain figure was reached in order to

(C) Deposits. induce other bids, and, if no higher bids were 134(1) (Mo.App.) Where a draft and bill received, to buy property for their joint ac- of lading is given to a bank hy a depositor in count and divide any profits, held, not invalid.-exchange for credit, and the draft is dishonorSchaap v. Robinson, 201 S. W. 292.

Conflicting evidence held to sustain verdicted, the bank can apply the debtor's deposits on that agreement between creditors to bid against but not if the transaction is a sale of the ship

the debt without the consent of the depositor, each other at bankruptcy sale until certain fig. ment.--Cochrane v. First State Bank of Pick

was reached and then buy property for their joint account was made in order to induce ton, Tex., 201 S. W. 572. other bids, and not to eliminate competition or

(E) Loans and Discounts. secure confirmation of sale by false appearance of competition.-Id.

183 (Mo.App.) The drawer of a draft, Agreement between two creditors to bid at able to a bank for the amount of money he ob

which was returned dishonored, is primarily libankruptcy sale so as to give false appearance of competition and thus induce confirmation of tained on it.-Cochrane v. First State Bank of sale is not void because against public policy, Pickton, Tex., 201 S. W. 572. but constitutes fraud authorizing refusal to confirm sale or enforce contract.-Id.

BAR. (E) Actions by or Against Trustee, See Judgment, w518-619; Limitation of Ac290 (Mo.) If corporate beneficiary of life

tions, Om 169. policy is estopped to deny that it consented to change of beneticiaries, its trustee in bankrupt

BATTERY. cy is also estopped.-Coleman v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 201 S. W. 514.

See Assault and Battery.

ure

For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

BAWDY HOUSE.

such indorser, such agreement should be strict

ly construed in favor of accommodation indorSee Disorderly House, 19.

sers.-Id. BENEFICIARIES.

(D) Bona Fide Parchasers.

www332 (Mo. App.) If indorsee had actual knowlSee Insurance, Om586, 783, 784.

edge when he took note that place of payment

had been changed, or knowledge of such facts BEST AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE. that his action in taking instrument amounted

to bad faith, under Rev. St. 1909, § 10026, he See Evidence, On 157–179.

is not “holder in due course."--Mechanics'

American Nat. Bank v. Helmbacher, 201 S. W. BIAS.

383.

342 (Mo.App.) Indorsee of note, which plainSee Jury, ww99; Witnesses, Ew372.

ly had been altered by changing place of pay:

ment from city generally to bank in city, could BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.

not be holder in due course within Rev. St. 1909,

$ 10022.-Mechanics' American Nat. Bank v. See Exceptions, Bill of.

Helmbacher, 201 S. W. 383.
BILLS AND NOTES.

C 342 (Tex.Civ.App.) That note stated that it

was part of purchase money for a dredge, title Ser Alteration of Instruments, Om6; Evidence, to which was to remain in payee, would not be

cm 420, 444; Husband and Wife, C85; notice to purchaser that consideration had, or Judgment, Om603; Payment, m9; Pleading, would fail, where dredge was not delivered up146.

til four months later.-Harty v. Keokuk Sav.

Bank, 201 S. W. 419. I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.

Cu343 (Tex.Civ.App.) If purchaser, who had (F) Validity.

knowledge that note had been given for machinww106 (Ky.) In a popularity contest, where ery, title to which was to remain in payee, also rompany sells dealer the prices and plans, knew or was charged with notice that machine with book of instructions telling that "ficti: ery had been warranted and might wholly fail cious votes should be given candidates to keep nocent purchaser. - Harty v. Keokuk Sav. Bank,

to meet warranties, he could not become inap interest, notes given are vicious.-Commer- 201 S. W. 419. cial Sec. Co. v. Archer, 201 S. W. 479. www114 (Mo.App.) Where plaintiff's agents in m351 (Ky.) Notes assigned after they become Juced defendant to sign an agency contract failure of consideration, under Ky. St. $ 37200,

due are subject to the defense of fraud and and, under representations that other instru- subds. 28, 58, 59.-Sparr v. Fulton Nat. Bank, ments then signed were duplicates of the con- 201 S. W. 310. tract, persuaded him to sign promissory notes, he was not bound, on discovery of the fraud, Em 362 (Mo.App.) Rule that one with knowlto rescind the contract, and his continuing un- edge of note's infirmity may secure good title der the contract did not waive the fraud.

by purchasing it from innocent holder is inPioneer Stock Powder Co. v. Goodman, 201 applicable, where such purchaser is original S. W. 576.

payee.-Casner v. Schwartz, 201 S. W. 592. Where plaintiff's agents persuaded defendeu 378 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where order for perant to sign promissory notes telling him that fume was given, and buyer signed the note atthey were duplicates of an agency contract, tached to order, and the seller detached note the notes were forgeries and absolutely void, before goods were shipped, contrary to his so that defendant could not waive the fraud, agreement, and sold note for value withat least as between the original parties, or by out notice of premature detachment, purchaser continuing under the agency contract.-Id. of note was not prevented from being innocent

purchaser even if the order was changed aftV. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES ON IN-er execution.-Foster v. Iowa City State Bank,

DORSEMENT OR TRANSFER. 201 S. W. 733, (A) Indorsement Before Delivery to or Transfer by Payee.

VI. PRESENTMENT, DEMAND, NO246 (Mo.App.) Indorsers of note warrant

TICE, AND PROTEST. ed maker's signature.-State ex rel. and to Use cam 396 (Ky.) Presentment of note for payment of Dominick v. Farmer, 201 S. W. 955.

at maturity was necessary to charge indorsers, On 262 (Mo.App.) Where several persons in- unless note fell within exception to rule requirdorsed note for accommodation, which a bank ing presentment.-Providence Mining Co. accepted, requiring another indorser, the note Glass Bros. Coal Co., 201 S. W. 308. being deposited in the bank as collateral tow414 (Tenn.) One who indorses note before secure a second note for a smaller amount, the delivery is entitled to notice of protest.-Wahank could not, as against the accommodation terhouse v. Sterchi Bros. Furniture Co., 201 indorsers, enforce its agreement with the last S. W. 150. indorser that the note should be a pledge also

VIII. ACTIONS. to secure a loan to him.-Ollis v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank, 201 S. W. 947.

Om443(4) (Ky.) The holder of a note for colWhere several persons indorsed a note for lection only is entitled to maintain in action accommodation, which a bank accepted requiring thereon.-Harrison v. Union Store Co., 201 S. another indorser the note being deposited in W. 31. the bank as collateral to secure a smaller note, C459 (Ky.) In action by assignee of notes the bank having also agreed with the last in- after maturity, payee is not necessary party to dorser that the note should be security for his entitle maker to counterclaim for cancellation loan as to the net proceeds after discharging for fraud of payee, even though assignee is only the smaller note, and the smaller note was paid, holding notes as collateral, under Ky. St. $ the bank lost all right to retain the original 3720b, subds. 27 and 51.-Sparr v. Fulton Nat. note as collateral.-Id.

Bank, 201 S. W. 310. Where several persons indorsed a note for ac- 477 (Mo.App.) In action on notes, the ancommodation, which a bank accepted, requiring swer relying on fraud of the agents who proanother indorser, the note being deposited in cured the notes need not set forth the fraud the bank as collateral to secure a smaller note, with all the definiteness and particularity of and the bank and the last indorser agreed that an indictment.-Pioneer Stock Powder Co. v. it should also be held as security for a loan to 'Goodman, 201 S. W. 576.

to

er

489(5) (Mo.App.) In action on note in der the maker liable to an innocent holder of court of record, where formal pleadings are re- such note is a question for the jury.-Harrison quired, independent agreement between maker v. Union Store Co., 201 S. W. 31. and payee to pay otherwise than in money Omw 537(3) (Ky.) In action on note, defendants cannot be shown under general denial or plea setting up lack of consideration and claiming of payment, but substantive facts must be they executed original, of which note in suit pleaded.--Sutton v. Libby, 201 S. W. 615.

was renewal, solely for accommodation, case Cw489(7) (Tex.Civ.App.) That petition describ- held for jury.-Farmers' Bank of West Louised note as payable to iron works company and ville v. Birk, 201 S. W, 315. note introduced in evidence was payable to Ow537 (4) (Mo.App.) Whether defendant who iron works did not constitute a variance where signed notes without reading them under repparties concerned used names interchangeably.- resentations of plaintiff's agents that they were Harty v. Keokuk Sav. Bank, 201 S. W. 419. duplicates of a contract was negligent in so Cm 492 (M0. App.) If note on its face appears doing held for the jury: --Pioneer Stock Powto be in different handwritings, written at dif- der Co. v. Goodman, 201 S. W. 576. ferent times, and in different ink, fact destroys Cow 537(6), (Mo.App.) Whether indorsee of note presumption of integrity.- Mechanics' American had actual knowledge when he took it that place Nat. Bank v. Helmbacher, 201 S. W. 383. of payment had been changed, or knowledge of Cw496(2) (Tenn.) Possession by third party amounted to bad faith, are questions for jury,

such facts that action in taking instrument of note payable to payee's order and not in- unless evidence is such that no two reasonable dorsed by bim raises no presumption of ownership, and no such presumption is created by Bank v. Helmbacher, 201 S. W. 383.

men could differ.-Mechanics' American Nat.. Negotiable Instrument Law, $ 49.-Allen v. m 537(7) (Ky.) In action on note against Hays, 201 S. W. 135. Cm 497(2) (Mo.App.) Under Rev. St. 1909, $ verdict for indorsers, plaintiff having failed to

maker and indorsers, court properly directed 10029, providing every holder is deemed prima prove presentment for payment, and it not apfacie to be holder in due course, burden to pearing note fell within exceptions to rule reshow he is such does not devolve upon him

quiring presentment charge indorsers.until showing is first made that title of person Providence Mining Co. v. Glass Bros. Coal Co., who negotiated note was defective.-Stevens v. 201 S. W. 308. Weinberg, 201 S. W. 603.

On 537(8) (Mo.App.) In action on decedent's On 497 (2) (Mo.App.) There being no contention that plaintiff was not the holder of the mission to jury of question whether items in

note, evidence held insufficient to warrant subnotes, he will be presumed a bona fide pur- kind were paid by decedent on note, and whethchaser until defendant shows the notes were

note transactions between decedent and. procured by fraud, when the burden shifts to

payee were intended as payments on note.plaintiff to prove purchase in good faith for Sutton v. Libby, 201 S. W. 615. value.-Scheidel Western X-Ray Co. v. Bacon, 201 S. W. 916.

BONA FIDE PURCHASERS. Com 497(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Although note stated that it was part of purchase money for a dredge, See Bills and Notes, 332-378; Vendor and title to which was to remain in payee, burden Purchaser, om 220-242. was on defendant to show some additional fact requiring purchaser to anticipate probable fail

BONDS. ure of dredge.-Harty v. Keokuk Sav. Banh, 201 See Appeal and Error, em 373, 1226, 1234;: S. W. 419.

Bail; Guardian and Ward, 182; Intoxi497 (4) (Ky.) Holder of negotiable instru

cating Liquors, w301; Justices of the ment, transferred before maturity and fair up. Peace, w159; Notaries; Street Railroads, on its face, is prima facie holder in due course, 52; United States, Omw 67. but, where maker shows vice in the inception of the note, the burden shifts to the holder to

BOOKS OF ACCOUNT.
show that he is a holder in due course, under
Ky. St. § 3720b, subd. 59.-Commercial Sec. See Evidence, Om 166, 354.
Co. v. Archer, 201 S. W. 479.
Where maker shows notes were vicious, a

BOTTLES.
holder must prove that the notes were fair
upon their face, that he became holder before See Licenses, 6.
they became overdue, in good faith and for
value, and that he had no notice of infirmity

BOUNDARIES. in the notes or title of payee, under Ky, St. $ 3720b, subd. 52.--Id.

I. DESCRIPTION. Om518(2) (Ky.) In action on note claimed by w3(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) In determining defendants to have been executed without con- boundaries, recourse should be had, first, to sideration and solely for plaintiff's accommoda- natural objects; second, to artificial objects; tion, evidence held insufficient to sustain ver- and, third, to courses and distances.-Sullivan dict for defendants.-Farmers' Bank of West v. Masterson, 201 S. W. 194. Louisville v. Birk, 201 S. W. 315.

3(6) (Mo.) Where parties took deed to m525 (Ky:) Where note was proven vicious, adjoining lots from commissioner in partition, holder's evidence held insufficient to show each deed locating lot thereby conveyed accordwant of notice.-Commercial Sec. Co. v. Arch- ing to measurement stated in public plat of er, 201 S. W. 479.

city addition, their rights were governed by Oww525 (Tex.Civ. App.) Evidence held insuffi- rule under Rev. St. 1909, SS 10290-10294, incient to show that plaintiff purchaser of note clusive, as to plats of cities, that lines of plat knew or was charged with notice that dredge, as actually located on ground control for which note was given, had been warranted monuments and other

surveys.--Macom and might fail to meet warranties.-Harty v. Brewster, 201 S. W. 517. Keokuk Say. Bank, 201 S. W. 419.

Cum 6 (Tex.Civ.App.) The only reason for rewww 537(1) (Ky.) Whether one signing a con- versing calls in field notes is to better follow tract made in such form that the holder was the surveyor's footsteps, and mere running of able to detach therefrom a part forming a lines according to course and distance does not promissory note was such negligence as to ren- locate the surveyor's footsteps in absence of

For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

201 S.W.-76

over

any marked lines or established corners.-How- V. ACTIONS FOR COMPENSATION. ell v. Ellis, 201 S. W. 10:22.

Cw64(1) (Mo.App.) In broker's action for The presumption that a surveyor did not

compensation, plaintiff has burden of showing cross a navigable stream in violation of law that defendant principal used information or will not justify reversing courses, where evi- services furnished by plaintiff in negotiating dence shows that the river by changing its loan after terminating plaintiff's agency:course had crossed the lines, and where by ex: Johnson v. Columbia Mortgage & Trust Co., tending the line the original shape of the tract 201 S. W. 365. can be practically restored.--Id.

Om 86(1) (Mo.App.) In broker's action for Call (Tex.Civ.App.) Where two contiguous commissions on loan negotiated by defendant tracts are bounded by field notes radically principal after terminating agency, evidence different as to courses and distances, the trial held not to sustain verdict that defendant court has no authority to change field notes availed itself of information or services supof the older survey so as to include the young- plied by plaintiff.—Johnson v. Columbia Morter when no evidence of the footsteps of the gage & Trust Co., 201 S. W. 365. original survey can be found.-Howell v. Ellis, 201 S. W. 1022.

BUILDINGS.
II. EVIDENCE, ASCERTAINMENT, See Schools and School Districts, ww68.

AND ESTABLISHMENT,
C35(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where footsteps of

BURGLARY. the surveyor are not found, it is the court's See Criminal Law, 365. duty to ascertain intention by surveyor's field notes and circumstances and conditions sur- CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS. rounding the survey.-Howell v. Ellis, 201 S. W. 1022.

See Reformation of Instruments. 37 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence helch to sustain finding of the jury of the location of 1. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DEFENSES. plaintiff's boundaries as contended for by them C 4 (Ky.) Cancellation of executed contract in their action of trespass to try title.-Sullivan is exercise of most extraordinary power of v. Masterson, 201 S. W. 194.

court of equity, which should not be exercised Cm 40 (1) (Ky.) Direction of verdict is prop- except in clear case, and never for alleged erly refused, evidence being conflicting on issue fraud, unless it is clearly made to appear.of which of two objects was dividing ridge Virginia Iron, Coal & Coke Co. v. Crigger, 201 between named hollows, called for by deed as S. W. 298. part of boundary.-Pulaski Stave Co. v. Sale, 201 S. W. 12.

II. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF. Em47(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where plaintiff's an- w32 (Ky.) The court cannot cancel a note cestor in title owned two tracts, and conveyed in an ordinary action, since such relief can be one by deed, if such ancestor had the land sur- granted in equity alone.---Commercial Sec. Co. veyed or pointed out the lines, plaintiff would be v. Archer, 201 s. w. 479. bound thereby.-Massingill v. Moody, 201 S. W. 265.

CAPACITY. Com 52 (3) (Ky.) Report of processioners un- See Deeds, Em196. der Ky. St. 2368, after notice to adjoining owners, is prima facie evidence of the true location of boundary line.--Foster y. Roberts,

CARBON COPIES. 201 S. W. 334.

See Evidence, 179. cm 54 (6) (Tex.Civ.App.) The presumption that surveyor did not cross a navigable stream

CARMACK AMENDMENT. in violation of law is one of fact only.-Howell v. Ellis, 201 S. W. 1022.

See Carriers, Om32, 180.

BRIEFS.

CARNAL KNOWLEDGE. See Appeal and Error, Om759-773.

See Rape.

CARRIERS.
BROKERS.

See Evidence, w73; Insurance, Em426.
IV. COMPENSATION AND LIEN.
C 44 (Mo.App.) Where real estate agert plac-

I. CONTROL AND REGULATION OF

COMMON CARRIERS. es his principal in touch with purchaser and thereafter principal terminates agency and (B) Interstate nnd International Transcompletes sale to such purchaser, agent may

portation. recover his commission. -Johnson v. Columbia 32(1) (Tenn.) A connecting carrier is not Mortgage & Trust Co., 201 S. W. 365.

estopped to rely on a provision in a bill of ladWhere agent in good health expends time and ing, limiting liability to loss occurring on its labor but has not had reasonable opportunity own lines to defeat recovery on an unlawful to avail himself of results, principal cannot ter- contract made by its agent to pay such loss on minate agency and use such services without interstate shipment, since estopi el cannot be compensating agent.-Id.

invoked to obtain for shipper an illegal pref54 (Ark.) Under contract of broker to erence.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Lewis & Adcock produce a purchaser "ready, willing, and able Co., 201 S. W. 131. to buy" on the principal's terms, he is en- C32(2) (Ark.) That a station agent after titled to commission if lie produces one with telegraphing told a shipper that a train arrir. whom the principal contracts.-Warmack v. ing during the night would carry his cattle did Perkins, 201 S. W. 120.

not constitute a contract for special service Omw 58 (Ark.) Where broker produced and a discrimination in violation of the Elkins tomer to whom principal agreed to sell, mere

Act.-Chicago. R. I. & P. Ry, Co. v. Stallings, fact that the contract contained no express 201 S. W. 294. promise to purchase did not make it so lacking Cm 32(2) (Mo.App.) In action under Carmack in mutuality that the broker could recover no Amendment against initial carrier of certain commission; reciprocal obligation of pur- | interstate shipments, there could be no rechaser being implied.--Warmack v. Perkins, covery on theory that carrier had waived pro201 S. W. 120.

vision in contract as to notice, in view of pur

cus

con

а

was

ed as

was

pose of Interstate Commerce Act to prevent forced.-Carolina Spruce Co. v. Black Moundiscrimination.-Cudahy Packing Co. v. Chi- tain R. Co., 201 S. W. 154. cago & N. W. Ry. Co., 201 S. W. 596. Om 32(2) (Tenn.) An agreement by a carrier

III. CARRIAGE OF LIVE STOCK. to pay damages, not occurring on its lines, to em 213 (Ark.) Where a shipper left his cattle goods shipped in interstate commerce under a in loading pen and car where they could not be bill of lading providing that no carrier shall fed or watered, relying on statement of railroad be liable for loss other than on its own lines, agent that train would take them during that is a discrimination and unenforceable.--South- night and they were not taken until 5 o'clock ern Ry. Co. v. Lewis & Adcock Co., 201 S. W. next day, the carrier was negligent, and ship131.

per could recover loss sustained.-Chicago, R. II. CARRIAGE OF GOODS. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Stallings, 201 S. W. 294. (F) Loss of or Injury to Goods.

Cm 218(5) (Mo.App.) A provision in a em 131 (Mo.App.) In an action against

tract of shipment of cattle. that the carrier common carrier for damage to a shipment of while remaining in pens awaiting shipment, is

does not assume any liability for live stock meat, a defense that the meat was spoiled, because being packed in defective refrigerator void as far as intended to relieve the carrier of

not covered by general denial.- negligence.-Akeman v. Wabash Ry. Co., 201 Cudahy Packing Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. 228(5) (Mo. App.) Evidence held sufficient Co., 201 S. W. 623. Om 134 (Mo.App.) In an action against a com

to support à finding that a steer shipped over mon carrier for damages to a shipment of defendant. --Akeman v. Wabash Ry. Co., 201 S.

defendant's road died through negligence of fresh meat, evidence that the meat was pack

was customary held sufficient to show W. 590. that it was properly packed and in good condi- no 229(5) (Ark.) Where a carrier delayed a tion at the time of delivery to the carrier. - shipment of 47 head of cattle for about a day, ('udahy Packing Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. causing them to be without feed or water, a Ry. Co., 201 S. W. 623.

verdict for $150 damages, based on testimony In an action against a common carrier for of cattleman as to their shrinkage in weight, damages to a shipment of meat in transit, evi- is not excessive.-Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. dence held not to show notice to the carrier v. Stallings, 201 S. W. 294. of intent to claim damages, as required by the bill of lading.-Id.

IV. CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS. em 137 (Mo.App.) In action against a common

(D) Personal Injuries.' carrier for damages to a shipment of meat, an

Om 282 (Mo.) Mere fact that, when prospecinstruction for defendant, if the damage was caused by the insufficiency of the cars to prop- part of right of way not intended for his use,

tive passenger on freight train trespassed on erly refrigerate the meat, held properly refused as being outside the issue.-Cudahy he was not ejected, did not make him invitee Packing Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., | where

to go into same place second time, especially dangerous condition

obvious. 201 S. W. 623.

Hamilton v. Pryor, 201 S. W. 550. (H) Limitation of Liability,

295(1) (Mo.) It was not negligence for

conductor and motorman to leave street car on Om 159(2) (Mo.App.) A bill of lading, covering a shipment of meat, providing that claims slight incline, provided they first properly se

::--Delfosse v. United Rys. Co. of St. for loss, damage, or delay must be made in cured car. writing to the carrier at the point of delivery Louis, 201 S. W. 860. within four months, is binding upon the ship

Street railway was not responsible for inper.-Cudahy Packing Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. juries to girl passenger who jumped from car F. Ry. Co., 201 S. W. 623.

which began to move unattended down slight

incline on which it had been stopped where (1) Connecting Carriers.

railway was not responsible for car so moving. w 180(1) (Tenn.) Carmack Amendment,

-Id. creating initial carrier's unity of responsibili-| Emo 306(1) (Ark.) A contract provision that ty for transportation to destination, does not union depot company should be liable to the preclude limiting the responsibility to shipper railroad company for negligence of servants by a connecting carrier to damages on its own

held limited to the depot company's own yard line, and such limitation is good at common limits, and not applicable to negligence of an law.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Lewis & Adcock operator failing to transmit to conductor mes(o., 201 S. W. 131.

sages covering train movements wholly beyond

such yard limits.--Kansas City Southern Ry. (J) Charges and Liens.

Co. v. Wade, 201 S. W. 787. em 193 (Tenn.) Under contract to transport

A provision, in an agreement for use of lumber, etc., at four cents per hundred pounds joint tracks, that if plaintiff carried passengers in excess of current rates from a junction between certain stations it should assume recharge of that rate and receipt of three cents sponsibility for injuries to such, as though it from connecting carrier for originating traf- owned and exclusively operated the road, confic was authorized.-Carolina Spruce Co. v.

strued with other clauses, held to mean injuBlack Mountain R. Co., 201 S. W. 154.

ries caused by negligence of plaintiff's servants, Established and well-known practice among the parties being each liable for one-half of railroads to allow to carrier originating busi- injuries caused by negligence of joint servants ness an advantage in distribution or division under another clause.-Id. of rate has been recognized and by fair infer-306 (4) (Ark.) Under contract with ence upheld by Interstate Commerce Commis- plaintiff for joint use of defendant's track, prosion and United States Supreme Court.-Id. viding that each railway company shall be lia

ble for one-half of the injury to persons caused (K) Discrimination and Overcharge. hy negligence of a joint employé, and who shall cm 199 (Tenn.) Railroad's contract for con

be considered such, held that a telegraph operstruction of logging road to main line junc- ator of a union depot company, receiving and tion, and to transport goods at certain rate, if transmitting train orders. for both, is such construed as giving logging company right to joint employé.-Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. part of through rate allowed railroad for orig- v. Wade, 201 S. W. 787. inating business would give it an undue and m317(8) (Mo.App.) In action against reforbidden preference, and should not be en- ceivers of street railway for injuries to pas

For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

a

« 이전계속 »