Page images

held that they could not do so, cven though it facilitated the escape of prisoners, because the casement which the public have in a highway does not merge in the foc of the scrvient cstatc, when acquired by the state: Pco. a'. Marin Co., 37 Pac. Rep. 203. It might have been urged with equal truth that the state in its corporate capacity, as owner of the prison grounds, and the public in its collective capacity, as owner of the easement in the highways, were in the eye of the law distinct entities. The state can sell the grounds used as a prison; it cannot barter away the easement of the public in the streets.


The Suprcmc Court of Nebraska holds that, notwithstanding the married women's acts, the husband may recover to the Husband and extent that the injury sustained by the wisc inca.

pacitatcs her from performing the duties that reasonably devolve upon her in the marriage relation, such as her services and companionship: Omaha & R. V. Ry. Co. v. Chollette, 59 N. W. Rep. 921. This is based on the decision of the Supreme Court of lowa, made years ago, in Mewhister v. Hatten, 42 lowa, 288.

The wise meets with equal consideration. The Supreme Court of Arkansas will permit her to claim a homestead which she continues to occupy with her family after the husband has beconie a fugitive from justice: Hollis v. State, 27 S. W. Rep. 73 ; and the Supreme Court of Missouri will not allow nonresident creditors a remedy against a married woman, also non-resident, which the laws of that state deny to residents, on the rather Aimsy principle that the lex fori governs as to remedies : Ruhe v. Buck, 27 S. W. Rep. 412. But by the lex loci contractus she was liable to suit ; and on the authority of Hill v. Chase, 143 Mass. 129; S. C., 9 N. E. Rep. 30; and Baum v. Birchall, 150 Pa. 165; S. C., 24 Atl. Rep. 620; as well as of the other authoritics cited by Sherwood, J., in his dissenting opinion, the decision seems unsound. The same court did better when it held, in Porter v. Reed, 27 S. W. Rep. 351, that married women, though under disability, arc proper defendants to a suit in equity to prevent multiplicity of actions.


Interstate Commerce

The Supreme Court of Texas secms to stick in the bark when it claims that a fire insurance policy, containing a clause

that it shall at oncc become null and void, and the

uncarned premiums be returned, if the premises becomc vacant without consent of the company, is avoided by a vacancy of three days, incident to a change of tenants : Fast Tex. F. I. Co. i'. Kempner, 27 S. W. Rep. 122 ; but the Supronic Court of Nėbraska is unquestionably right in deciding that, when a policy provides that no action shall lic unless begun within six months after the loss, and that the damages arc payable sixty days after satisfactory proofs of loss arc fur. nished, thc six months' limitation docs not begin to run until the expiration of the sixty days: German Ins. Co. v. Davis, 59 N. W. Rep. 698.

The Supreme Court of the United States, over the dissent of Chief Justice Fuller and Justices Brower and Jackson, has

recently decided that the provisions of f 12 of the

Interstate Commerce Act, authorizing circuit courts, on rcfusal of any person to obcy a subpoena issued by the interstatc commcrcc commission, to order such person to appear beforc thc commission to give evidence, and to punish a failure to obcy such order as a contempt, arc constitutional: Interstate Commerce Commission v. Bruneau, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1125. The whole proceeding bears a suspicious resemblance to an attempt to do an illegal act by Icgal mcans; and it would be hard to find an analogy to it that has stood the test of investigation. It is to be scared that in this, as in so many other recent cascs, both in federal and state courts, the court has been misled into considering the end, rather than thc mcans by which it was to be attained.

The Supreme Court of Nebraska has allowed itself to be persuaded into a reaffirmance of the strictly logical and lcgal,

but wholly inequitable doctrine, that when a judge Judgments

ment is rendered in a suit begun before the term, its licn rclates back to the first day of the term, and is prior to that of a mortgage exccuted during the term, but before the rendition of judgment: Norfolk St. Bk. v. Murphy,

59 N. W. Rep. 707. To their honor bc it said, Ryan and Ragan, CC., disscnted. If it is really impossible for the courts to brcak away of their own motion from doctrines like these, the legislature should be at once informed and convinced of its duty to take the matter in hand.

Landlord and


The same court holds that, when there is a contract between the owner of land and another person, by which the

latter is to cultivate the land and harvest the hay

grown thercon for a share thercor, but the relation of landlord and tenant is not created, and there is no specific agreement as to the possession of the land, the partics becomie tenants in common of the crop; and is one seizes the whole, cither before or after severance, and disposes of it in denial of thс other's right, the other may maintain trover for his share : Rced 2. McRill, 59 N. W. Rep. 775. The Supreme Court of Minnesota has decided that neither a mortgagce in possession, nor an assignec of rents growing out of a lease assigned to him as security, has such an estate as brings him in privity with the lessce under a lcasc exccuted by the mortgagor, so as to make him liable upon the covenants in the lease : Cargill 1. Thompson, 59 N. W. Rcp. 638. The Supreme Court of Michigan has ruled that when, by the terms of a lease, buildings are to be removed by the lessec on expiration of the term, a refusal to permit their removal is a conversion: Osborn v. Potter, 59 N. W. Rep. 606; and the Supreme Court of Nebraska has held that a ratification by the landlord of the unauthorized act of a tenant in crecting buildings, by allowing the cost of the buildings as a proper charge against him on sctt!cment, will render the cstate of the landlord liable to a mechanics' licn arising out of the improvements : Scroggin v. Natl. Lumber Co., 59 N. W. Rep. 548. By a decision of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, lessees who are bound to rebuild can recover the full value of buildings from a railroad ncgligently setting them on fire: Anthony v. N. Y., P. & R. R. Co., 37 N. E. Rep. 780.

According to the Supreme Court of Michigan, one who has


cut and rafted logs under a contract, by the terms of which

he is cntitled to retain possession until paid for

his services, has a common law lien thereon, if he complies with the contract; and the fact tha: the owner obtains possession will not defeat the licn, if that possession is tortiously obtained: Haughton 2. Busch, 59 X. W. Rep. 621.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas, after discussing the apparcnily conflicting cascs, has arrived at the conclusion

that a delivery of liquor to one who promises Liquors

to return it in kind, is not a “sale," if made in good faith; but if it is a merc subterfuge, it is a sale, within the meaning of the statute: Robinson v. State, 27 S. W. Rep. 233. Fairly representative cases are, on the one hand, Com. v. Abrams, 150 Mass. 393; S. C., 23 N. E. Rep. 53; and on the other, Gillan v. State, 47 Ark. 555; S. C., 2 S. W. Rep. 185. The Supreme Court of Michigan has decided that knowledge that the vendee is selling liquors illegally is no desence to an action by the vendor for the price: Gambs v. Sutherland, 59 N. W. Rep. 652; though a contrary doctrine prevails in Massachusetts: Graves v. Johnson, 30 N. E. Rep. 818.

Master and


The Supreme Court of Nebraska, which has been making law rapidly of late, has ruled that after a contract of hiring

expires, the law does not imply that the after

services were rendered on the original contract, so as to exclude parol evidence of different terms: Hale v. Shechan, 59 N. W. Rep. 554. The Court of Civil Appeals of Texas thinks that the legislature has power to declare what class of employés shall thereafter be considered as fellow servants: Galv., H. & S. F. Ry. Co., 27 S. W. Rep. 426; and the Supreme Court of California, that the mate of a ship engaged in carrying freight and passengers between distant points is a fellow servant of a man employed in the steward's department to wait on the officers' table: Livingston v. Kodiac Packing Co., 37 Pac. Rep. 149; though if a mate is not a viceprincipal, it will be hard to define the latter term. Yet the House of Lords treats the master of a vessel as a fellow

servant with the scamen: Hedlcy 7. Pinkncy & Sons S. S. Co. (1894) App. Cas. 222. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, however, holds that an employé of a railroad riding to and from work on a free ticket given him by the defendant company, is a passenger, not a fellow servant of the crew, Juring that ride: Doylc v. Fitchburg R. R.. 37 N. E. Rep. 770. Thc Appellatc Court of Indiana has decided, rather at variance with the weight of authority, that when a stune, insecurely placed by the order of a fellow scrvant in charge of the yard, fell on a workman and injured him, the master was liable for his neglect to provide a saíc place to work: Blondin z'. Oolite Quarry Co., 37 N. E.. Rep. 812; and the Supreme Court of Missouri, that is a railroad neglects its statutory duty to fence its tracks, it will be liable for the death of an engineer due to a collision with a bull that had come on the track through a defect in the fence: Dickson v. Omaha & St. L. Ry. Co., 27 S. W. Rep. 476.



Is usual, the subject of micchanics' liens bcars its share of fruit. The Supreme Court of Illinois has held, that when a

corporation is a sub-contractor, a noticc signed by

it, or its attorncy, without the corporatc scal, is sutfcicnt : Carey-Lombard Lumber Co. v. Fullenwider, 37 X. E. Rep. 899; the Supreme Court of Washington, that thc fact that a person cntitled to a mechanics' licn assigns his claim against the owner of thc land as collateral sccurity, will not defcat his right to claim thc licn, as the assignment is a merely cjuitable onc: Potvin *'. Denny Hotel Co., 37 Pac. Rep. 320; and the Suprenic Court of Indiana, that in an action to foreclose a mechanics' licn, persons to whom the property was conveyed after record notice of intent to filc a licn, and who claim to be owners thcrcof, arc proper parties : Vorhccs v. Beckwell, 37 N. E. Rop. 811. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in that mania for spying out unconstitutionality that secnis to afflict it, has lately decided that an act providing that no contract between the owner and the contractor shall inter. fere with the right of a sub-contractor to file a licn, unless he agrces in writing to be bound by the contract between the

« PreviousContinue »