ten, a.nd contained in the application by him signed. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, unless he has proved that the signature of Alford to the application was obtained from him on the belief that he (Alford) was signing a written statement which contained the truthful answers which he had really made to the question put to him, which answers were falsely written down unknown to him (Alford) when he attached his signature to the application. If the plaintiff recovers, the verdict must be for $10,000, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. from the date of proof, submitted say from February 10, 1881. If, therefore, the signature of Alford was obtained, as stated, with. out knowledge on his part that his answers were falsely recorded, the plaintiff is entitled to recover; but, on the other hand, .if his signature was not thus fraudulently procured, the verdict must be for the defendant. Verdict for plaintiff for $10,000, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. from February 10, 1881.
PRESIDENT & DIRECTORS OF THE
OF NO'RTH AMERICA
LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN
(Ci1'cuit Court, E.
CARRmR-FREIGHT-Loss BY NEGLIGENCE.
Although the shipment of cotton in open flat cars may not be in itself such negligence as would make the carrier liable under all contingencies, yet, when such shipment is made, there is devolved on the carrier the duty to take·additional precautions for the protection and safety of the cotton,
Trial by the Court without a Jury. Three cases were brought by the plaintiff, an Insurance company, the defendant, a railway company, to recover damages for loss of cotton while in charge of defendant, as carrier, while being transported over its line on open flat cars. The insurance company had been subrogated to the rights of the several consignees by payment of their claims under their policiea of inl:iurance. Robert Harrison, for plaintiff. Portis If; Pike, for defendant.
WIGGINS' I'lllBRY 00. II. OHIOAGO II A. B. 000
TroUT, D. ;r. These cases were heard at the same time, andres' mainly on the same general principles. Some of the evidence introduced was incompetent, it being merely hearsay, as contradistinguished from" verbal facts." Discarding aHsuch, the main question decisive of the cases is as to defendant's negligence. Although the shipment of cotton on open or fiat may not be in itself such an act of negligence as would make the carrier liable under all con· tingencies, yet, when such shipment is made, there is devolved upon the carrier the duty to take the additional precautions needed for the protection and safety of the cotton. In these cases it seems that not only was no such precaution taken, but that the train, in two of the cases, was hurried forward when fires were adjacent to the track, or sufficiently so to render it more than probable that so inflammable an article would be ignited and destroyed. In the other case, the negligence, although not so gross, was extremely culpable. It is admitted that if the loss was caused by defendant's negligence the plaintiff must recover. It is unnecessary to consider what effect, if any, the Texas statute would have upon the exemptions in the bills of lading against loss by fire, so far as the defendant is concerned. Rev. St. Texas, 1879, p. 48. Judgments for the plaintiff will be entered for the respeotive amounts, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per year from January 10, 1871, with costa.
WIGGINS' FERRY Co. t1. CHIOAGO
& A. R. 00.*
(Circuit Oourt. E. D. Missouri. April 10, 1882.)
CoNSTITUTIONAL LAW-JUDGMENTB-ARTICLE THE UNITED STATES.
1,011' THJIl CONSTITUTION 0 ..
The prOVision of the federal constitution that .. full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state," only relates to the validity and effect of judgments rendered in one state when proved in another. S. 8AME. The duty of the courts of one state to follow the decisions of another, upon questions arising upon the construction of the statutes of the latter, is a duty resting upon comity, and is not imposed by the federal constitution. S. SAME-REMOVAL OF CAUSES. Where two corporations, organized under the laws of 11l i nois, excuted a con· tract to be performed in that state, which, according .0 the deci&ions of the
oReported by B. F. Rex. Esq., of the St. Louis bar.