Page images
PDF
EPUB

Rep. 341; but the carrier is not liable if the servant was cxposed to provocatior, sufficient to justify the assault, or acted in self cicfence, under a reasonable apprehension of immediate danger : New Orleans & Vortheastern R. R. Co. v. Joncs, 142 U. S. 18; S. C., 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 109.

Charitable

The English Chancery Division has lately decided, in alle v. Lord Strathcden, [1894) 3 Ch. 265. that a gift by will for

the benefit of a voluntecr corps is a charitable Bequests bequest ; and that a bequest of an annuity to be provided to a volunteer corps on the appointment of the next lieutenant-colonel, is void as a transgression of the rule against perpetuities, since such an officer may never be appointed.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in the recent case of Wick China Co. v. Brown, 30 Atl. Rep. 261, ruled, that a preConspiracy,

liminary injunction, rightfully granted against Injunction members of a labor union, alleged to have combined and conspired to prevent the plaintiff from employing other workmen in its factory, should not have been dissolved. when the answer, signed by twenty-one of the defendants, is not sworn to, though affidavits, made by nearly all the defendants, deny certain acts of violence charged in the bill. · The order dissolving the preliminary injunction was reversed and set aside, and the injunction reinstated and continued.

Conversion,

The Supreme Court of Nebraska has recently passed upon a new question of law, in Pope v. Benster, 60 N. W. Rep. 561.

holding that there was no reason why real estate Real Estate should not be made the subject of a suit in the nature of conversion, by analogy to personal property; and that therefore (1) When the owner of a judgment, which to his knowledge has been paid, but never satisfied of record, and which remains an apparent lien on real estate of another, causes execution to be issued on that judgment, the real estate on which it is an apparent licn to be levied on and sold, such sale to be confirmed, and a conveyance therefor to be executed and delivered to the purchaser at the execution sale, and

accepts the proceeds of that sale, the owner of the real estate so sold may treat the sale as void and recover the land; or, at his clcction, he may waive the invalidity of the salc, and suc the owner of the judgment for the value of the real estate; (2) The measure of damages in such a case is the fair market value of the interest of the owner in the real estate at the time of its sale on execution ; (3) In such an action, the owner of the judgment is cstopped from asserting, as a defence, that the cxecution sale, and the subsequent proceedings, were void.

According to the Supreme Court of Nebraska, a Board of llealth may be authorized by statute to make rules for the Conotllutioral disinfection of the baggage of persons coming Law,

from a country where contagious disease exists, Board of

Health and making it a misdemeanor for any person to resuse to permit his baggage to be disinfected, and such rules are therefore not unconstitutional; but such a statute does not authorize a rule to subject the baggage of all iinmigrants to disinfection, irrespective of the locality from which they come: Hurst v. Warner, 60 N. W. Rep. 440.

The Supreme Court of Nebraska holds that a contract for the removal of dead animals, garbage and other noxious and Exclusive

unwholesome matter, from cities, though conferPrivilege ring exclusive privileges upon the contractor, is not unconstitutional, as contravening a provision of the constitution that "the legislature shall not pass any special or local laws .... granting to any corporation, association or individual, any special or exclusive privileges, immunity or franchise whatever :" Smiley v. Mlac Donald, 60 N. W. Rep. 355.

In the opinion of the Court of Appeals of New York, when the president of a corporation ratifes for the benefit of the

corporation a contract made by him while acting Corporation, Contracts of as a promoter thereof, for services to be rendered Promoter

to the corporation, and such services are performed for the corporation, and the contract providing therefor is one which would have bound the corporation, if made by the presi

Officers

dent after it had acquired a legal existence, the corporation is bound by the contract: Oakes v. Cataraugus Water Co., 38 N. E. Rop. 461.

The Court of Appeals of Colorado has recently decided, that when, by statute or charter, the power of electing the Election of president of a corporation is vested in the board

of directors, an election of a president by the stockholders at their annual meeting is a nullity, and consers no title the office: Walsenburg Water Co. v. Moore, 38 Pac. Rep. 60.

The English Chancery Division has recently passed upon a very interesting point of parliamentary practice, in Nall. Dwvila

Meetings. lings Soc. v. Srkes, [1894] 3 Ch. 159, in which Adjournment case it was held, that it is the duty of a chairman to preserve order, conduct proceedings regularly, and take care that the sense of the meeting is properly ascertained with regard to any question before it; but that he has no power to stop or adjourn a mecting at his own will; and if he attempts to do so, it is competent for the meeting to resolve to go on with the business for which it has been convened, and to appoint another chairman for that purpose.

The same court has ruled, that the withdrawal of an application for shares in a corporation may be made orally at any Subscription,

time before notice of allotment is given; and that, Withdrawal in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the court will presume that a clerk in the registered office of a corporation, is, during business hours, and while the secretary is absent, so far in charge of the office, that he has authority to receive a notice, so as to make it a communication to the corporation: In re Brewery Assets Corporation, [1894) 3 Ch. 272.

In the opinion of the Supreme Court of lowa, the fact that, pending a suit to subject land to the payment of a judgment,

judgment is satisfied of record, does not. Jurlediction deprive the court of further jurisdiction, so as to render a decree of sale void: Oliver v. Riley, 60 N. W. Rep.

Courts,

The last mentioncd court has also lately decided, that when a contract of shipnient by rail docs not define what shall Custom

constitute a carload, a general custom among and Usage 'railroad men and shippers, by which a carload is made to consist of a certain number of pounds, governs the contract : Good v. Chic., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 60 N. W. Rep. 631.

The Supreme Court of Indiana holds that a deed of land, given by one not judicially declared insanc, cannot, during his

lisctime, be avoided on the ground of insanity, by Deeds

onc to whom, under the provisions of a will, the land would descend, if not disposed of by the grantor in the deed during his lifetime: McMillan v. Decring, 38 N. E. Rep.

398.

The Chancery Division has recently reasserted the doctrinc, that if it can be gathered from the words used by the testator,

that he intended to give a particular property to Devine

a legatce, but owing to the testator having several properties answering the description in the will, it is impossible to say, cither from the will itself, or from extrinsic evidence, which of these several properties the testator referred to, the gift fails for uncertainty, and the court cannot, to avoid intestacy, construe the will as giving the legatec the option of electing which property he will take: Aslen v. Asten, (1894) 3 Ch. 260. According to the Supreme Court of Michigan, money paid

by a mortgagee, in excess of the amount due on Duress

the mortgage, to stop foreclosure proceedings, is a voluntary payment, and cannot be recovered on the ground of duress : Vereycken v. Vandenhook, 60 N. W. Rep. 68%.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has lately held, in Shaughnessy v. Leary, 38 N. E. Rep. 197, that when a

person has adversely used a wooden drain across Eaxements

another's land, the laying of an earthen pipe inside the wooden drain does not interrupt the running of the

statutc of limitations in favor of the casement therein, for a greater or more burdensome use of the drain does not make it a different drain, or destroy the character of such use as is continuous; and, as a matter of law, thc fact that the carthen pipe was laid at the joint expense of the owners of the servient and the dominant tenements docs not prevent thc use of it by the latter from being adverse. Nor, according to the sainc court, does an enlargement of a drain at the joint expense of the ow'ners of the servient and dominant tencments, destroy the identity of the drain so as to destroy the easement: Jones v. Adams, 38 N. E. Rep. 437.

Polling
Places

Thc Supreme Court of Michigan very properly holds, that voters may rely upon the regularity of the ballots prepared by Elections,

the proper officers; and that it does not matter Ballots

that a person whose name is printed on the ballot was not the nominee of any party, and that his name was not properly certihed, and not cntitled to a place on the ballot; if clected, he is cntitled to the office: Bragdon v. Navarro, 60 N. W. Rep. 277. This, of course, supposes that no fraud was intended or practiced by the officers who prepared the ballots; if such was thc case, the above decision would hardly apply. Thc Supreme Court of New York is of opinion, that a

statute, providing that the inhabitants of a town

may have their polling place in a city created within the limits of the town, is constitutional: Peo v. Carson, 30 N. Y. Suppl., 817.

The Supreme Court of Minnesota has just rendered an important decision under the Australian Ballot Law, in State v.

Braley, 60 N. W'. Rep. 676, to the effect that the Disability

requirement of the statute that an oath must be administered to an alleged illiterate or physically disabled voter before he can have the aid of another person in marking his ballot, is mandatory; and the voter who requests such aid must, under oath, bring himself strictly within the terms of the statutc as to his inability to mark his own ballot. He cannot avail himself of aid on the ground that he visually uses glasses, but has not brought them with him. The same was

Voters,

« PreviousContinue »