DUNMEAD V. A,HERICAN M;rNING & SMELTING 00.
accident. Thl'l suit is for injury to the, wife. The loss of service of the wife, the uu;rlling and expense of nursing, and the doctors' bills, are subjects of anothe:r suit brought by the husbat,ld on his own account, and nothing to do with damages which to the wife which may have thus arisen. It is ,the permanent is in controversy. If such has resulted from the wrongful act of the defendants, and from no other cause,and the plaintiffs, have not contributed by their own acts or neglect, or caused by the character of the horse, you are to find for the plaintiff, and estimate her damages, if any.
DUNMEAD '11. AMERIO.AN .MINING
(Circuit Oourt,]). qolorado. J'uly 22,1882.)
In an action for damages for personal injuries caused by the negligen:t acts of a plaintiff must 1lver that he himself exercised due Cale , .' ,and caution at the time of the accident, and that he was not ,and no means of knowledge of character of the person Wh6 was employed 'with him, or of his capacity'an'd fitneSs for the work. ", -'f
.; .- iF I '
The plaintiff omits to say in his complaint that he himself used due care and caution at the time of this accident. That, I think, is a matter which must appear upon the evidence. While it may be that he is not required to offer any evidence directly to the point that he was in the exercise of care and caution at the time of the accident, it must appear from all the evidence that the fact was so; that is to say, that he himself was not negligent. He fails to aver, also, that he was not informed of the character of this person #ho was employed with him. He says nothing upon that subject. ,He avers that the defendant had information of the unskilfulness and untrustworthiness of this man, but says nothing as to himself. It must appear from the evidence that he was ignorant of the character of this person, beca..use if he knew/oihis character, knew he was a person who was unfitted for the service, or had the same means of knowledge as the defendant, it was in his own wrong that he continued in service with such person, unless, indeed, there were. ,some special circumstances, as that complaint had been made and the defendant had promised to dismiss this individual and employ another in his stead;qut nothing of that kind is averred. He says whatever as to his own knowledge of the capacity and fitness, of this with him in the precise service person, who was certainly which the plaintiff was engaged in. He says nothing whatever.8;s to his capacity and fitness. He should'state something upon, that point, as to whether he was informed that this personwss unfit for the; seivice in which he was engaged. , On these grounds the demurrer will be ,
(Uircm't' ()ourt, W. D. Missouri. November, 1880.,
MUNICIPAT, BONDe-RIGHTS OF BONA
Where the charter of a railroad company granted to it the privilege to obtain county subscription to its stock, and the, defendant county subscribed for stock in the company, and issued bonds under the authority conferred by the charter holders, not· of the company, such bonds are valid iii the hands of "W'ithstanding there was,at th,e time of the subscription and issuance of the bonds, a special statute prohibiting, the county court from taking stock unless the subscription was voted for by a majority of all the resident tax-payers. The issuing of the bonds raises the presumption that all preliminaries,.including the election required, have been complied with; and the bona fld' holder is not bound to look behind the question of p o w e r . ' ,