marks of his true simplicity of character, not only is his loss felt as a personal one by his contemporaries at the Bar, but even by those who were almost by a half a century his juniors. It is therefore true that the influence of his professional life was not limited to those of his own age and generation, but extended throughout the profession from its oldest to its youngest member.

After the announcement in the October number of the competition prizes offered by the AMERICAN LAW REGISTER and Review for the best annotation to be contributed to its pages, the attention of the Editors was called to the fact that the author of the annotation to which the first prize was awarded had drawn upon Mr. Bennett's note to his edition of Benjamin on Sales to such an extent as to deprive the annotation, in the judgment of the Editors, of that feature of originality which is essential to such a piece of work. While it is quite possible that the excessive use of the authority in question was the result of a misapprehension upon the part of the writer of the annotation with respect to the nature of the work required of him, it is nevertheless entirely clear in the minds of the Editors that no alternative is open to them but to modify the decision as announced and to award the first prize to Miss Mary Bartelme, whose annotation had secured the second prize.

THE

AMERICAN LAW REGISTER

AND

REVIEW.

DECEMBER, 1894.

PROGRESS OF THE LAW.

AS MARKED BY DECISIONS SELECTED FROM THE ADVANCE REPORTS FOR NOVEMBER.

Edited by ARdemus StewaRT.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey has lately decided, in Lynch v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R., 30 Atl. Rep. 187, that a suit is not commenced by the signing and sealing of a summons, which has been retained in the office of the attorney, without any purpose of immediate service.

Actions

Allens

According to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, as expressed in In re Howard, 63 Fed. Rep. 263, an undercoachman," whose duties are partly to assist in keeping stables, horses and carriages in good order, but principally to drive the horses when his employer, or any of his family, go out in carriages, and to accompany on horseback the younger members of the family when they go out on horseback; and who boards with his employer's coachman, and sleeps in a room over the coach

house, is a "personal or domestic servant" within the meaning of the U. S. Statute of 1885, c. 164, prohibiting the immigration of aliens under contracts for labor, and providing that the provisions of the act shall not apply to "persons employed strictly as personal or domestic servants." Since, however, the Statute of 1888, C. 1210, makes the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury on such subjects conclusive, the court declined to discharge the relator on habeas corpus.

Assignment

The Court of Civil Appeals of Texas has recently ruled, that when an insolvent debtor executes, as part of the same transaction, several interdependent deeds of trust, for Benefit of passing title to all his property subject to execu Creditors tion, for the benefit of certain creditors, with a provision that the surplus, if any, is to be distributed among his other creditors, holding legal claims, the deeds constitute a general assignment: City Natl. Bk. v. Merch. Natl. Bk., 27 S. W. Rep. 848.

Banks

In the opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, when money is deposited with the cashier of a bank, under an agreement that it shall be inand Banking vested by the bank in bonds and stocks, the bank is liable for the return of the money, no investment having been made, though the agreement for investment by the bank was ultra vires; and the fact that the cashier embezzled the money will not affect the bank's liability: L'Herbette v. Pittsfield Natl. Bk., 38 N. E. Rep. 368.

Bicycles

The Supreme Court of Minnesota has rendered a decision which will be welcome to all devotees of bicycling, for the manner in which it asserts their rights upon public highways. The substance of that decision is, that where a bicycler is riding along a highway, and a horse takes fright at him, he will not be liable in damages to any one injured thereby, unless he was acting in disregard of the rights of others. The highway is intended for public use, and a person driving a horse thereon has no rights superior to

those of a person riding a bicycle. A bicycle is a vehicle, and riding one in the usual manner, as is now done upon public highways, for convenience, recreation, pleasure or business, is not unlawful; "they cannot be banished, because they were not ancient vehicles, and used in the Garden of Eden by Adam and Eve:" Thompson v. Dodge, 60 N. W. Rep. 545.

Bids

In the opinion of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, an act, which directs municipal officers to award certain contracts to the "lowest responsible bidder," vests discretionary, and not merely ministerial powers in such officers, the word "responsible." as therein used, applying not only to pecuniary ability, but also to judgment and skill: Interstate Vitrified Brick and Paving Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 30 Atl. Rep. 383; following Comm. v. Mitchell, 82 Pa. 343; Findley v. Pittsburgh, 82 Pa. 351; Douglas v. Comm., 108 Pa. 559; Pavement Co. v. Wagner, 139 Pa. 623; S. C., 21 Atl. Rep. 160.

Bill of

The Supreme Court of South Dakota, in Merchants' Natl. Bk. v. McKinney, 60 N. W. Rep. 162, has ruled, that a stenographer's or referee's notes of evidence cannot, by Exceptions stipulation of the parties, take the place of the bill of exceptions, or of the statement of the case settled by the judge, which must be returned to the Supreme Court by the clerk of the court below, as part of the judgment roll.

Building

In the recent case of Charles Tyrrell Loan & Bldg. Assn. v. •Haley, 30 Atl. Rep. 154, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held, that a member of a building and loan assoAssociations ciation, whose shares have not matured according to the mode of computation originally adopted by the association, and used by it for nearly thirty years, is not estopped from claiming that by another and more just method of computation his shares are matured. FELL and MITCHELL, JJ., dis

In

sented, however, and it would seem with good reason. the first place, the association, in the absence of any statutory

restrictions, certainly has a right to adopt any method, not manifestly unjust, of computing the value of its shares, which it pleases; and in the second place, the member, having taken his shares with full knowledge of the fact that such method of computation was the rule of the association, and not having objected to it previously, as applied to the shares of others, ought not to be heard now to raise that objection.

Carriers,

The Supreme Court of Michigan has lately ruled, in Zagelmeyer v. Cincin., S. & M. Ry. Co., 60 N. W. Rep. 436, that a railroad company cannot impose, as a penalty for Fares not purchasing a ticket, such a sum that the fare collected on the train, including that additional amount, shall exceed the maximum rate of fare allowed by law.

Negligence

The Court of Civil Appeals of Texas has just rendered a curious decision, in Pac. Exp. Co. v. Black, 27 S. W. Rep. 830, that a husband may recover from an express company, which has failed to promptly deliver medicines shipped to his wife, damages for both the physical and mental suffering of the wife, but not for sympathetic mental suffering by him on account of the wife's pain. The latter is too remote.

Torts of

The ruling of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, in White v. Norfolk & S. R. R., 20 S. E. Rep. 191, is of great importance to travellers, though fortunately the Servants state of facts which gave rise to it is not of frequent occurrence. The court held that a carrier is liable to a passenger for damages, if one of the crew goes outside of his line of duty and assaults him; and that this doctrine rests upon the obligation of the carrier, not only to carry his passengers safely, but to protect them from ill treatment by other passengers, intruders, or employés. This is the general rule: East Tenn., V. & G. Ry. Co. v. Fleetwood, (Ga.), 15 S. E. Rep. 778; Indianapolis Union Ry. Co. v. Cooper, (ind.), 33 N. E. Rep. 219; Citizens' St. Ry. Co. of Indianapolis v. Willocby, (Ind.), 33 N. E. Rep. 627; Harrold v. Winona & St. Peter R. R., 47 Minn. 17; S. C., 49 N. W. Rep. 389; Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. McMonigal, (Tex.), 25 S. W.