« PreviousContinue »
Gillett v. Taylor (Utah) Bills and Notes-Sureties-Dig. gage - Liability - Removal of Baggage at Destina.
tion, ann. case, 229.
Company Regulation - Stoppage of Trains at R. D. 260.
Kochersperger v. Executors (II.) Constitutionality of
Kohler's Estate, In re (Wash.) Executor and Admin
istrator's Liability for Money Deposited in Bank,
frage-Constitutional Law, R. D. 361.
Lafontain v. Hayburst (Me.) Contract-Services Ren.
Green v. State Board of Canvassers (Idaho) Nature of
Debt, ann. case, 427.
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Ellis (U. S. S. C.) Validity of
Messenger-Limiting Liability, R. D. 51.
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. McElroy (Ky.) Release and
Claim for Personal Injuries-Avoidance for Fraud
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.
ration - Negligence – Accident to Travelers, R. D.
McLaughlin v. Louisville Electric Light Co. (Ky.)
McNamara v. People (Colo.) Criminal Law-Allbi-
Hoefler v. Hoefler (N. Y.) Divorce-Alimony - Pre. Markwell v. Pereles (Wis.) Parent and child Cus
tody of Child-Right of Father, R. D. 240.
Mayor, etc. v. Erwin (N. J.) Validity of the Acts of
De facto Public Officers, Ed. 89.
Relations between Employers and Employees, Ed. I Bankers for Receiving Deposits when Iụsolvent,
Opium to Wife-Right of Action by Husband, R. D. 53- Messer v. "The Fadettes” (Mass.) Assignability of a
Iiwas v. Neidt (Iowa) Will-Construction-Limitation Milwaukee Masons' & Builders' Assn. v. Niezerowski
(Wis.) Monopolies - Combination in Restraint of
Verdict of a Person Personating a Juror, R. D, 3. Mitchell v. Rochester Railway Co. (N. Y.) Recovery
Mental Shock, Ed. 89.
Moore v. Jones (Tex.) A New Doctrine as to Fellow
strument - Promissory Note - Sufficiency of Con. Moore, In re (V. S. D. C., Oreg.) Criminal Law-Inter-
state Extradition - Warrants Procured by False
Norwegian Plow Co. v. Clark (Iowa) Sale or Ballment,
Tenant-Alteration of Premises-Injury to Tenant, Palmer v. Tingle (Ohio) Mechanic's Lien – Rights of
Property – Lien of Subcontractors-Constitutional
Law, R. D. 70; Ed. 201.
Patterson y, Chesapeake &0. R. Co. (Va.) Railroad
Companies-Fires-Negligence-Evidence, R. D. 175.
terest in Newspaper - Control as Editor, R. D, 379 dictment-Obscenity, R. D. 302.
dates, R. D. 220.
Concurring Negligence-Joint and Separate Liabil.
ity, R. D. 404
Reese v. Bates (Va.) Sale-Warranty of Agent-Liabil.
ity of Principal-Usage and Custom, R. D. 405.
of Claim--Bar, ann, case, 306.
State v. Wood (N. J.) Torts-Joinder of Actions-Ant.
mals, R. D. 241.
ment for Separation-Validity, aon. case, 208.
Taylor v. Travelers' Ins. Co. (Tex.) Life Insurance-
Insurable Interest-Intended Wife, R. D. 301.
Yale v. Curtiss (N. Y.) Suits for Breach of Promise of
Marriage, Ed. 240.
sengers-Rejection of Pass ger, R. D. 280.
Rowe v. United States (U. S. 8. C.) Law of self-defense,
and Duty to Retreat, Ed. 69.
State v. Blake (Conn.) Will-Acceptance of Bequest by
State, R. D, 404.
State v. Hostetter (Mo.) Office and Oficerg-Eligibility
of Women-Clerk of Court-Elections, ann, case,
State v. Patterson (Tex.) Injunction-Nuisance-Pub
lic Uges of Remedy, R. D. 2.
No. 2. Scope of a Lis Pendens. By S. S. Mer-
James L. Hopkins, 55.
Contract. By John D. Lawson, 93.
No. 11. Negotiability of Guaranties. By Cyrus
J. Wood, 225.
No. 14. Liability of a Sleeping Car Company
No. 15. Responsibility of Insurance Company for
Misstatement of its Agent as to Health of the
No. 16. Wua. Constitutes a Broker. By Nathan
No. 18. Liability for the Sale of Intoxicants.
By Jno. D. Shackleford, 263,
No. 20. Answers in Insurance Suits. By S. S.
No. 23. The Court's Jurisdiction of the Res in
Attachment and Garnishment Cases. By
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
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.