Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

Mo.) Insurance-Contract-Conflict of Laws, R. D. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. Ry. Co. V. McGahey (Ark.)

202.

Carrierg-Passenger's Effects - Acceptance as Bag.

Gillett v. Taylor (Utah) Bills and Notes-Sureties-Dig. gage - Liability - Removal of Baggage at Destina.
charge-Parol Evidence, R. D. 136.

tion, ann. case, 229.
Gladson v. State of Minnesota (U.S. S. C.), Railroad Kent v. Chapel (Minn.) Assignment–Verdict for Tort,

Company Regulation - Stoppage of Trains at R. D. 260.
County Seats, R. D. 422.

Kochersperger v. Executors (II.) Constitutionality of
Glencoe Sand Co. v. Hudson Brog. (Mo.) Action Against Inheritance Tax, Ed. 447.
Party for Inducing a Third Person to Break a Con.

Kohler's Estate, In re (Wash.) Executor and Admin
tract, Ed. 505.

istrator's Liability for Money Deposited in Bank,

Gougar v. Timberlake (Ind.) Elections-Woman Suf.

R. D. 117.

frage-Constitutional Law, R. D. 361.

Lafontain v. Hayburst (Me.) Contract-Services Ren.

Green v. State Board of Canvassers (Idaho) Elections

dered in Expectation of Marriage, R. D. 241.

-Majority-Amendment to Constitution, ann, case,

383.

Lancashire Ins. Co. v. Corbetts (III.) Garnishment-

Judgment Rendered in Another State Situs of

Green v. State Board of Canvassers (Idaho) Nature of

Debt, ann. case, 427.

Majority Required in Favor of Questions Submitted

to a Popular Vote, Ed. 377.

Larkin v. Parmelee (Conn.) Estoppel in Pais, app.

Gribben, In re (Okla.) Municipal Corporation City

case, 410.

Ordinance-Street Parade, R. D. 448.

Laughlin v. Solomon (Pa.) Actions against Foreign

Executors, R. D. 300.

Groth v. Groth (III.) Right of Husband to Alimony,

Ed. 279.

Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Keefer (Ind.) Carriers

of Passengers Liability for Injury to Express

Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Ellis (U. S. S. C.) Validity of

Messenger-Limiting Liability, R. D. 51.
State Statute Providing for Penalty of Attorneys'
Fees to be paid by Railroad Companies in Case of

Louisville & N. R. Co. v. McElroy (Ky.) Release and

Failure to Settle Damages, Ed. 219.

Discharge Compromise of Claim for Personal In-

Hale v. Hollon (Tex.) Conveyance Expectant Inter-

juries-Avoidance for Fraud-Return of Considera

tion, R. D. 70.

est-Validity-Ancestor's Assent, ann. case, 326.

Harper v. Clayton (Md.) Creditors' Bill When Lies-

Lumley v. Wabash R. Co. (U. 8. C.C. of App., Sixth

Circuit) Release and Discharge

Unassigned Right of Dower, ann, case, 97.

Compromise of

Claim for Personal Injuries-Avoidance for Fraud

Heaton v. Eldridge (Ohio) Contracts-Interpretation -Return of Consideration, R. D. 70.

-Enforcement--Statute of Frauds, R. D. 422.

McCaa v. Elam Drug Co. (Ala.) Breach of Contract-

Hennig v. Staed (Mo.) Validity of Statute Making Damages, ann, case, 347.

Debts Due for Labor Preferred Claims against Prop. McHugh v. City of St. Paul (Minn.) Municipal Corpo.
erty of Employer, Ed. 485.

ration - Negligence – Accident to Travelers, R. D.
Herd v. Catron (Tenn.) Will-Conditions in Restraint 241.
of Marriage, R. D. 3.

McLaughlin v. Louisville Electric Light Co. (Ky.)
Hess v. Preferred Masonic Mut. Acc. Assoc. (Mich.) Negligence-Electric Wires -- Insulation, R. D. 51.
Accident Insurance Accidental Injuries-Disease

McNamara v. People (Colo.) Criminal Law-Allbi-

-Hazardous Occupations, R. D. 359.

Evidence-Reasonable Doubt, R. D. 448.

Hoefler v. Hoefler (N. Y.) Divorce-Alimony - Pre. Markwell v. Pereles (Wis.) Parent and child Cus
venting Enforcement of Decree, R. D. 221.

tody of Child-Right of Father, R. D. 240.
Holbrook v. Aldrich (Mass.) Negligence - Injury to

Mayor, etc. v. Erwin (N. J.) Validity of the Acts of
Minor, R. D. 302.

De facto Public Officers, Ed. 89.
Holden v. Hardy (Utah) Validity of Statute Regulating Meadowcroft v. People (Ill.) Criminal Liability of

Relations between Employers and Employees, Ed. I Bankers for Receiving Deposits when Iụsolvent,

Holleman v. Harward (N. Car.) Damages Sale of

Ed. 153.

Opium to Wife-Right of Action by Husband, R. D. 53- Messer v. "The Fadettes” (Mass.) Assignability of a

House BII, In re (Colo.) Validity of the Colorado In. Trade Name, Ed. 339.

heritance Tax Law, Ed. 465.

Middleton v. Middleton (N. J.) Constitutional Law-

Huston v. City of Council Bluffs (Iowa) Municipal Limited Divorce, R. D, 116.

Corporations-Ice and Snow on Sidewalk-Liability, Miller v. State (Tex) Witnesses-Husband and wife

R. D. 301.

Offense Committed Prior to Marriage, R. P. 508.

Iiwas v. Neidt (Iowa) Will-Construction-Limitation Milwaukee Masons' & Builders' Assn. v. Niezerowski
on Absolute Devise, R. D. 280.

(Wis.) Monopolies - Combination in Restraint of
Illinois Steel Co. y. Szatenbach (111.) Trial-Effect on Business-Promissory Note, R. D. 262.

Verdict of a Person Personating a Juror, R. D, 3. Mitchell v. Rochester Railway Co. (N. Y.) Recovery
Indianapolis Water Co. v. American Strawboard Co. of Damages for Physical Injuries Resulting from
(U.S. C. C. Ind.) Injunction-Contempt of Court-

Mental Shock, Ed. 89.
Contempts Classified, R. D. 50.

Moore v. Jones (Tex.) A New Doctrine as to Fellow
Irwin v. Lombard University (Ohio) Negotiable In. Service, Ed, 359.

strument - Promissory Note - Sufficiency of Con. Moore, In re (V. S. D. C., Oreg.) Criminal Law-Inter-
sideration, R. D. 282.

state Extradition - Warrants Procured by False
Jackson y. Commonwealth (Ky.) Jurisdictional Lo. Affidavit, R. D. 91.
cality of the Crime of Homicide, Ed. 359.

Norwegian Plow Co. v. Clark (Iowa) Sale or Ballment,
Jefferson v. Jameson & Morse Co. (III.) Landlord and ann, case, 471.

Tenant-Alteration of Premises-Injury to Tenant, Palmer v. Tingle (Ohio) Mechanic's Lien – Rights of
R. D. 323.

Property – Lien of Subcontractors-Constitutional
Johnson v. State (N. J.) Criminal Law - Evidence-

Law, R. D. 70; Ed. 201.
Physical Exhibits and Experiments to Establish

Patterson y, Chesapeake &0. R. Co. (Va.) Railroad
Identity, R. D. 2.

Companies-Fires-Negligence-Evidence, R. D. 175.
Jones v. Williams (Mo.) Injunction - Purchase of In. People v. Kaufman (N. Y.) Criminal Practice - In-

terest in Newspaper - Control as Editor, R. D, 379 dictment-Obscenity, R. D. 302.
Jules v. State (Md.) Medical False Pretenses, Ed, 403. People v. McGaffey (Colo.) Elections and Voters-Nom.
dations-Rival Conventions-Agreements of Candi.

dates, R. D. 220.
Pocker v. Pocker (Pa.) Wills-Validity, R. D. 202.
Pugh 7. Cbesapeake & O. Ry. Co. (Ky.) Negligence-

Concurring Negligence-Joint and Separate Liabil.

ity, R. D. 404

Reed v. West. Union Tel. Co. (Mo.) Recent Telegraph

Company Litigation-Cipher Messages-Negligence

--Proximate Cause, R. D. 71.

Reese v. Bates (Va.) Sale-Warranty of Agent-Liabil.

ity of Principal-Usage and Custom, R. D. 405.
Reynolds v. Jones (Ark.) Pleadings-Action-Splitting

of Claim--Bar, ann, case, 306.

Rhodes v. Missouri Savings and Loan Co. (III.) Power

of Building Association to Issue "Paid up Stock,"

Ed. 115.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Public Nuisance-Prevention of Crime, ann. case,

162.

State v. Van Wye (Mo.) Criminal Law-Scandalous

Publication-Freedom of the Press, R. D. 134.

State v. Wood (N. J.) Torts-Joinder of Actions-Ant.

mals, R. D. 241.
Stebbing v. Morris (Mont.) Husband and Wife-Agree.

ment for Separation-Validity, aon. case, 208.

Stranahan Bros. Catering Co. v. Coit (Ohio) Master

and Servant-Malicious Act of Servant-Liability of

Master-Injury to Third Persons-Damages, ann.

case, 140,

Taylor v. Travelers' Ins. Co. (Tex.) Life Insurance-

Insurable Interest-Intended Wife, R. D. 301.

Taylor v. Wabash R. R. Co. (Mo.) Carriers of Passen-

gerg-Failure to Heat Cars-Damages, R. D. 154.

The Bath Gas Light Co, v. Claffy (N. Y.) Corporation-

Enforcement of Ultra Vires Contracts, R. D. 154.

The Commercial Travelers' Mut. Acc. Assoc, v. Ful.

ton (U. 8. C.C. of App., Second Circuit) Accident

Insurance-Accidental Injuries-Disease-Hazard.

ous Occupations, R. D. 359.

The Majestic (U. S. S. C.) Invalidity of Notices or

Memoranda on Passenger Tickets or Bills of Lad-

ing, Ed. 421.

The Queen v. Lillyman (Eng.) Criminal Law-Rape-

Complaint-Evidence, R. D. 154.

Tippett v. State (Tex.) Witness-Examination--Sug.

taining Credit of Impeached Witness, R. D. 261.

Travelers' Ing. Co. v. Selden (U. S. C. C. of App.,

Fourth Circuit) Accident Insurance_“Bodily In.

firmities"-Apoplexy, R. D. 300.

Trebilcock v. Big Missouri Miping Co. (8. Dak.) In.

solvent Corporation-Mortgage to President-At.

tachment, R. D. 70.

United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Agan. (U. S. S.

0.) Validity of the Sherman Anti-trust Law as Ap-

plied to Railroad Pooling Agreements, Ed. 319.

Vandercock Co. v. The State (U.S.C.O., S. Car.) Ship-

ment of Liquor into State iu Derogation of the

Dispensary Law, Ed. 505.

Wabash R. Co. v. Jones (IN.) Railroad Companles-

Injuries to Trespassers, ann. case, 10.

Walker y. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. (Mass.)

Insurance Policy-Construction - Time Computa-

tion, R. D. 90.

Walling v. Commonwealth (Ky.) Jurisdictional Local.

ity of the Crime of Homicide, Ed. 359.

Warner v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. (U. S. S. C.) Statute of

Frauds-Contract not to be Performed in a Year-

Grant of an Easement in Realty, ann. cage, 74.

Weber v. Shay (Ohio) Contract-Attorney and Client-

Public Policy, R. D. 340.

Wierman v. International Loan & Investment Union

(III.) Power of Building Association to Issue “Paid

up Stock," Ed. 115,

Williams v. Chamberlain (I11.) Gift-Delivery, ann.

case, 288.

Wisconsin Keeley Inst. Co. v. Milwaukee County

(Wis.) State-Police Powerg--Treatment of Habit.

ual Drunkards at County Expense, R. D. 280.

Witty y. Southern Pacific Co. (U.S.C.C., S. D. Cal.)

Arrest-Offer of Reward-Deputy Sheriff-Estoppel,

R. D. 31.

Wood v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Tenn.) Negligence

- Volunteer-Assistance of One not an Employee,

R. D. 224.

Woodall v. Streeter (Tex.) Principal and Surety-Ex-

tension of Note-Consideration-Release of Surety,

R. D. 340.

Yale v. Curtiss (N. Y.) Suits for Breach of Promise of

Marriage, Ed. 240.
Zackery v. Mobile & O. R. Co. (Miss.) Carriers of Pag.

sengers-Rejection of Pass ger, R. D. 280.

[ocr errors]

Robertson v. United States (U. S. 8. C.) Enforcement

of Maritime Contracts, Ed. 133.

Rogers v. Raines (Ky.) Oontracts-Conflict of Laws-

Comity Between States-Credits on Building and

Loan Notes, R. D. 203.

Rowe v. United States (U. S. 8. C.) Law of self-defense,

and Duty to Retreat, Ed. 69.

St. Louis & 8. F. Ry. Co. V. Matthews (U. S. S.C.)

Statutory Liability of Railroad Companies for Fires

Caused by Locomotive, Ed. 239.

San Antonio St. Ry. Co. v. State (Tex.) Mandamus-

Street Railway-Fullure to Operate Lines, R. D.

466.

Sapford v. Poe (U. S. 8. C.) Validity of State Taxation

of Property of Express Companies, Ed. 279.

Sattley, In re (Mo.) Criminal Liability of Bankers for

Receiving Deposits when Insolvent, Ed. 153.

Scheffer v. Willoughby (II.) Negligence-Restaurant

Keeper-Burden of Proof, R. D. 50.

Scott v. Donald (U.S.S. C.) Validity of South Carolina

Llquor Dispensary Law, Ed. 173.

Septell y. New Orleans & C. R. Co. (U. S. S. C.) Animals

-Property in Dogs-Police Power, R. D. 506.

Sheehan v. St. Paul & D. Ry. Co. (U. 8. C. C. of App.,

Seventh Circuit) Railroad Company-Liability to

Trespassers on Track, R. D. 50.

Siegel F. Eaton & Prince Co. (III.) Contracts-Con-

struction - Entirety-Performance, ann, case, 367.

Smith v. Grant (Colo.) Admission in Evidence of the

I Ray, Ed. 49.

Smith v. Sherwood (Wis.) Absence of Trial Judge

From Court Room During the Argument to the

Jury, Ed. 465.

Smith v. Smith (Tenn.) Husband and wife-Alienation

of Husband's Affection-Disabilities of Coverture,

R. D. 156.

south Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman (Eng.)

Rights of the Finder of Lost Chattels, Ed. 133.

southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Beatty

(ark.) Telephone Companies-Injury to Person on

Street, R. D. 52.

State y. Bates (Utah) Validity of Statute Providing for

a Jury of Eight, Ed. 239.

State v. Blake (Conn.) Will-Acceptance of Bequest by

State, R. D, 404.

State v. Burdge (Wis.) Schools-Compulsory Vaccina.

tion of Children-Power of State Board of Health,

R. D. 341.

State v. Hostetter (Mo.) Office and Oficerg-Eligibility

of Women-Clerk of Court-Elections, ann, case,

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

State . Missouri Pacific Railway Co. (Mo.) Bicycle as

Baggage of a Passenger, Ed. 465.

State v. Myers (W. Va.) Constitutional Law-Sale of

Adulterated Food, R. D. 222.

State v. Patterson (Tex.) Injunction-Nuisance-Pub

lic Uges of Remedy, R. D. 2.
State v. Patterson (Tex.) Injunction-Abatement of a

ic

Central Law Journal. period per day in such work, is constitu

tional. The court besides relying upon the

constitutional provision above quoted, disST. LOUIS, MO., JANUARY 1, 1897. cussed the question before it on general prin

ciples of constitutional law, and held that With this issue the CENTRAL LAW JOURNAL

lue statute was not objectionable under any enters upon the twenty-fourth year of its ex

provision of the federal constitution. The istence. In addition to this reminderit

decision of the Supreme Court of the United might be appropriate to say something by

States in Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113U. S. way of retrospect of the past and assurances

703, is closely in point. In that case, it apfor the future. Whether we have rendered a

peared that "an ordinance of the city and real service to our patrons, we will not, in the

county of San Francisco prohibited the washexcess of modesty, undertake to say. We ing and ironing of clothes in public laundries point with pride, however, to the rapid and

and washhouses within certain prescribed steady increase in the number of our sub

limits of the city and county from 10 o'clock scribers and to the many kind words which

at night until 6 o'clock on the morning of continually come to us from them. We have the following day; and one Soon Hing was aimed to make this publication a practical

fined and imprisoned for a violation of it, law newspaper in the broades sense rather and he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus than a critical review in the philosophical

on the ground that the ordinance was void, sense. Its uninterrupted and continued suc

because it discriminated between the class of cess convinces us that we have not, in this

laborers engaged in the laundry business and regard at least, mistaken the wants of our

those engaged in other kinds of business ; friends. In the future, as in the past, we

that it discriminated between laborers beyond shall endeavor to keep our readers advised of

the designated limits and those within them; all the important cases decided in the courts

that it deprived the petitioner of the right to of this country from time to time and to sup

labor, and, as a necessary consequence, of ply them with what are, in effect, briefs on

the right to acquire property, and that the questions of live legal interest. With this,

board had no power to pass it. The writ we extend to our friends thanks for their

was denied by the lower court, and the judggenerous support, and a cordial New Year

ment was brought before the Supreme Court greeting.

of the United States, and affirmed by that

court. Among other things that court said The case of Holden v. Hardy, 46 Pac. in its opinion: “The specific regulations for Rep. 756, recently decided by the Supreme one kind of business, which may be necessary Court of Utab has attracted wide attention for the protection of the public, can never be because of the universal interest of the sub- the just ground of complaint because like ject involved. The constitution of Utah con- restrictions are not imposed upon other busitains an article expressly regulating the rela- ness of a different kind. The discriminations between employers and laborers which tions which are open to objection are those reads as follows: “Sec. 6. Eight hours where persons engaged in the same business shall constitute a day's work on all works or are subject to different restrictions, or undertakings carried on or aided by the held entitled to different privileges under the State, county or municipal governments; and same conditions.

It is only then that the the legislature shall pass laws to provide discriminations can be said to impair that for the health and safety of employees in equal right which all can claim in the enfactories, smelters and mines.” The holding forcement of the laws. Soon Hing v. Crowof the court was that a statute of that State ley, 113 U. S. 703, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 730; providing that the period of employment of Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 5 Sup. workingwen in all underground mines shall Ct. Rep. 357.be eight hours per day, except in case of

The New York Law Journal makes the emergency, where life or property is in imminent danger," and constituting it a misde- point that the Utah decision is distinguishable meanor to employ a person for a longer

“from the Sunday closing laws for barber

3

are

shops, which have been declared unconstitu- the conclusion that the assets of a corporational in several States of the Union, because tion do not constitute a trust fund for the there is no apparent reason from which the benefit of its creditors in such a sense that courts could infer that the legislatures acted any disposition thereof to secure an antecelegitimately in discriminating between the dent indebtedness in favor of one or more of trade of a barber and that of other trades in its officers, though made while the corporageneral. Laws that arbitrarily discriminate tion is still a going concern, and its officers in favor of or against members of a trade or still have hopes of continuing business, may calling, as such, amount substantially to be set aside at the instance of creditors, and class legislation. Especially is this so where, that the fact that one is president of a coras in the barber shop law in New York, arbi- poration is not ground for depriving him of trary sub-distinctions were made, allowing the right to enforce securities which he holds barbers to practice their trade on Sunday in for the payment of his just claims against the some places, but not in others. On the other

company. hand, laws that make special regulations for

CRIMINAL LAW EVIDENCE-PHYSICAL Exa certain trade, because of its patent peculiar

HIBITS AND EXPERIMENTS TO Establish IDENcircumstances or dangers, are, if reasonable,

TITY.—In Johnson v. State, 35 Atl. Rep. 787, constitutional exercises of police power. See

it was held, among other points, that impres. also Com. v. Hamilton Mfg. Co., 120 Mass.

sions of footprints made in a box of sand with 383."

a boot worn by the prisoner may be exhibited by the State to witnesses who had seen cer

tain footprints near the body of a murdered NOTES OF RECENT DECISIONS. person, for the purpose of comparison. The

court considered that it was plainly compeINJUNCTION – NUISANCE - PUBLIC USES OF

tent for the witnesses who had seen the footREMEDY.-A recent opinion by the Court of

prints to describe them to the jury-their Civil Appeals of Texas (State v. Patterson,

dimensions, their shape, their peculiarities. 37 S. W. Rep. 478), is an interesting contri

For the purpose of such description, a phobution to the discussion of the proper scope

tograph or a drawing could have been reand limitations of the remedy of injunction

ferred to. In the present instance the witfor public benefit. It was held that where

nesses made a comparison of the real footthe State, through its proper officer, seeks

prints as seen by them with the artificial the jurisdiction of a court of equity to abate

prints made by the boots, which latter were by injunction a public nuisance, it must show

undoubtedly genuine. The question was one that such nuisance is an injury to the property

of identity, and in such cases all that a witor civil rights of the public at large, which it

ness can do is to express his opinion, and is its duty, as the agent of the public, to pre

such expression of opinion, in this class of vent. The particular point decided was that

cases, is plainly admissible. The subject has the fact that a law against gambling is not

been under judicial consideration on various actually observed or enforced constitutes no

occasions, and the rule as stated has been ground for the interposition of a court of

very generally applied. Thus, in Com, v. equity to restrain the keeping of a common

Dorsey, 103 Mass. 412, on a trial for murder, gambling house. It would seem that this

the testimony of persons not experts was held decision is sound in principle.

admissible to the effect that hairs on a club

appeared to the naked eye to be human hairs, INSOLVENT CORPORATIONS-PREFERENCE TO and resembled the bair of the deceased. OFFICERS--ASSETS AS A TRUST FUND.-A new Many decisions can be found to the same case on the controverted question as to how effect. See People v. Gardner, 144 N. Y. far assets of a corporation constitute a trust 119, where the New York Court of Appeals fund for the benefit of creditors, is Childs y. held that no error was committed by the trial N. P. Carlstein Co., 76 Fed. Rep. 86 decided | judge in directing that the defendant be forciby the United States Circuit Court, Eastern bly compelled to stand up for the purpose of District of Michigan. The court reviews all identification by a witness for the prosecu. the authorities on the subject, and comes to tion.

« PreviousContinue »