r '1.
Adm'r, v. NEGLIGENCE-CONTRACT AS TO.
HERMANN.·
(Circuit (JI)urt, D. In4iana. 1881.)
A contract between employer and employe, whereby the employe, in consid, erationofthe employment,agrElell to, release and discharge his employer from all damages on l¥lcount of accident or death to the employe, caused by the negligence of his employer or co;employes, is void as against public policy.
This w,as f!.n action 'by Peter Roesrier, administrator of the ,estate of George Reed, against. Hermann, pu account of the death Reed while,'in the deferidant's employ; alleged to have resulted from the defendant's negligent use ofdefec£ive and unsafe maehinery.The defendant, in on,e of his answers, pleaded his 16:'lase and discharge from damages under and by of the fol.,. agreement, viz',: ' , . " In consideration of employment given me by Henry Hermann, and as an'inducement and 'as a' consideration to said Hermann to actuate, h'im to take and engage me into his employ, I herewith grant, bargain, and stipUlate, fdrmyllelf, my heirs, .exeeutorB, .au1ninistrators, asSigns, or personal representati:ves, whoever they maybe, to and with said Henry heirs, ,and assigns, that I, lJeillg such employe of said not hold whatever befalls during .sQch employment, or any sum, or for t;laqlages whatever; and! herebyrelease.and discharge, said Herulann from all liability herein, to roe orrHt' personlUrepresehtatives, for 16SS;: damage, sutl'ering,'sickness, ailment, dEiath; orbarm, of whatsoever Jiatureor kind I or they, my personal sentatives, may Butl'er by reason of. any accident. mishap, death, or damage to JPe while ,in the emploY, of saiq Hermann, whether it arise from said Hermann or by. or by reason of the negligence of the other of said Hermann's employes, or be the cause or mishap whatsoever it n'lay; thereby d(sl:harging him, lIermann, heretofore shown,from all kind'and natureandmamier of liabilitY Whatsoever, by reason of negligence on418.part, o'mission ofduty,'oraocident,:dliring Buch employment, from date hereQc forevE\r, .. . And additio111 also promise: to work not less than 10 hours per. dflY, :while in tlleell1pl9,y Hermann, under penalty of and damages. ' .
or
all
as
GEORGE X REED. [Signed) mark. . ;,Signeq. ofW,G;. BOEPPLE. rrhe plaintiff demurred, to this anSwer, and, after argument, the demurver was, sustained. No 'written, opinion was filed.' ' · Ohas. ,']j)enbyand J. S. for plaintiff, Chas. L. Wedding and Jas. L. fordefenclant,
hIs
*Reported by Cltas. L. Holstein, United States AttlJrney.
MARSHAL V. TOWN OF ELGIN. JRESHAM, D. J., (oraUy.) The substance of the complaint.is that the defendant's machinery was defective and unsafe;" that while operating the same with reasonable care, and w:ithout knowledge ofits def{lctive character, the deceased received the injuries which caused ,his death; ot and that the defendant knew of' the character of the with proper might have known it. So far as he COllld do stt by the exercise of re"asonable ciue"the 'defendant was bound to supply. his factory with suitable and safe!maehinery. If he failed to dothiSi and required his employe to operate machinery which was unsound and and in doing so therlatter, whilt\exercising ordinary oare and prudenoe," received injuries which oaused his death, "his personal representative has a right of aotion for the benefit of those who have 108B from the the ligence in supplying his employes with unsafe maohinery haS:.IcauBed the death of the latter,the law will not allow the defendant to,sayas. in effect he does say:in' this answer"';...:"It is:trne? that my machineiy was defective and unsafe,and mynegligence:causedthedeath, of my employe, but I am not IHable to thoBe who have suffered from -the loss of his life, because I had a contract with my employe which:seOlll'ed tome the right to supply him with defeotive;a;nd unsafe machinery, and to be negligent." Such a contract is void a:sagainst publje'pdl,liey, If there was no negligence th"e defendant'l1eade'dnocbntl'ac't' to exempt him from liability; if he oolltradt:set"out'$ his answer will be of no avaiL " , " . .'," ,I" ';',: 'L . J. ·I
'J"
MARSHAL
and others v. v.
TOWN OF
,; ('I'rq
ELGIN'.
SUIE
THE' TOWN OF JPLAINVIEW. '.. . . " ' ':, '!
(Circuit Oourt,D.,Minneaota. September,lB8,l,j' 1. MUNICIPAL BONDS-RECITALS-CONBTITUTIONAL LAW ..... GltNilRAL LAws OF MINNESOTA, 1877, c.106-LIS PENDE:NS-NOTICE.. I;"r-c
In an action to recover the amount of coupons .attac1led ,to bandil, UDder the provisions of chapter 106, QfMinnellota" 1877, by the plaintiffs, andalso to recClver the amount of sold by them to other parties, !WId, that the reQitals iIi the boilds evidence, in favor of a purchaser Without other inrorrrilitioh; tM't'the conditions precedent prescribed in the law .HW4.ltlso, thl!t as the law under which the bonds were had been. recognized as valid, at the time of the purchase, by the 'highest 'st,ate court,tio subseciuent decision could affect their validity in the hands of'these purchasers, :neil],; also; that the rule affecting everyone withn6iice of pending suits'is inapplicable wherJ negotiab-Ye securities constitute the IJI i, ' , : L"l,!! i ;;1 i,