NOTES OF RECENT CASES
553
keeper extends only to the movables of his guests. de facto here. The presumption of law is that He is not liable for insults or injuries to the person. the conduct of parties is in conformity to law As the court does not find that this case has ever until the contrary is shown. In the Klein case been questioned in England, it considers itself the Supreme Court held that even if it had been bound, and] does : in effect, hold that^while a established that Mrs. Klein's first husband was guest may recover for injuries to his goods he still living at the time of the second marriage she cannot recover for injury to his person, but would still be entitled to the benefit of the favor Judge McLaughlin writes a vigorous dissenting able presumption that the first marriage had been dissolved by a divorce. The Klein case, the opinion in which he says, inter alia: "The law, if anything, is a progressive science, court notes, has been cited and approved in Waddand it has been the boast of the members of the ingham v. Waddingham, 21 Mo. App. 609 and legal profession that it not only keeps abreast, Leech v. First Nat. Bank, 99 Mo. App. 684, 74 S. W. but is ahead, of the varying changes which are 416, and criticised in Winter v. Supreme Lodge, constantly being made for the comfort and im« K. of P, 96 Mo. App. 17, 69 S. W. 662. Outside provement of human society. For this reason I of Missouri the Klein case has been upheld by do not think a rule which was applied 300 years Hunter v. Hunter, 111 Cal. 261, 43 Pac. 756, 31 ago in determining whether an innkeeper was L. R. A. 411, 52 Am. St. Rep. 180; Schuchart v. liable, considering the advancement that has Schuchart, 61 Kan. 597, 60 Pac. 311, 50 L. R. A. since been made and the changes that have taken 180, 78 Am. St. Rep. 342 and Boulden v. Mclntire, place in the mode of living, is decisive of the 119 Ind. 574, 21 N. E. 445, 12 Am. St. Rep. 453. Numerous other cases are also cited in support of question." the doctrine of the Klein case, and the court comes As Calye's Case decided nothing of the sort, and to the conclusion that the presumption of inno the contrary has been often determined, the court cence on the part of the parties to the marriage, is hardly justified in ascribing its questionable law which is stronger than all counter presumptions to precedent. J. H. B. in such cases, casts the burden of proof on the parties denying the validity of the marriage, even MARRIAGE. (Presumption). Mo. — The ques tion as to the burden of proving the validity or to the extent of proving the negative. invalidity of a marriage where it is shown that MASTER AND SERVANT. (Fellow Servants.) one of the parties has been previously married is N. Y. S. C. — In Fouquet v. New York Cent. & discussed in Johnson v. St. Joseph Terminal R. Co. H. R. R. Co., 103 N. Y. Supp. 1105, 53 Misc. Rep. 101 S. W. 641. This was an action by a widow 121, it was held that a draftsman in the employ to recover the statutory penal sum for the death of the engineering department of the New York of her husband. It appeared that plaintiff and Central Railroad was a fellow servant with a man decedent were married in due form of law, but it running the elevator in the Grand Central depot also appeared that the decedent had previously in New York, in which the draftsman worked. been married to another woman. The question MASTER AND SERVANT. (Nurses.) U. S. then arose as to whether plaintiff had the burden C. C. D. R. I. ■— A trained nurse performing her of proving the validity of the second marriage, usual duties and exercising the skill which is the or if defendant must show its invalidity. It was result of training in that profession, does not, contended that defendant had the burden of according to Parkes v. Seasongood, 152 Fed. proving the invalidity of plaintiff's marriage to come within the definition of a " servant", but decedent, and in support of this contention was rather is one who renders personal service to an cited the case of Klein v. Laudman, 29 Mo. 259. employer in an independent calling. In this case In the Klein case Klein and his wife had sued an employer of a trained nurse, who was occupy Laudman and his wife for slander. Defendants ing rooms at a hotel, was held not liable to the in effect denied that plaintiffs were husband and landlord for permitting the nurse in his employ wife. Mrs. Klein had stated that she had pre to remain in the rooms occupied by him, and viously been married in Germany and these there to be delivered of an illegitimate child, an admissions were proven. Based on that proof occurrence which caused considerable scandal the trial court instructed that plaintiffs had the and unsavory notoriety to the innkeeper. It was burden of proving that such marriage was legally furthermore held that the employer of the nurse terminated before the date of the second marriages was not liable for passively permitting the body The court on appeal, however, said that there was of the dead infant to be concealed in the rooms no presumption that a marriage which was proved occupied by him, or to be concealed in another to have existed at one time in Germany, continued part of the building, unless he actively partici to exist after positive proof of a second marriage pated in the concealment of the body outside of
