patches sent on March 2, 1903, by the defendants, Hannahan and Lee, as Grand Masters of their respective Brotherhoods to O. D. Ashley, as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Wabash Railroad Company, and to George Gould, as President of the Missouri Pacifle Railroad Company, contained subtle threats to boycott at least the Missouri Pacific Railroad, in the event the demands of the workmen were not complied with.

These dispatches (both being the same), are in the following language:

"On account of the refusal of President Ramsey, of the Wabash, to meet the demands of the members of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen in the matter of working rules and wages, we hereby notify you that unless Mr. Ramsey receded from his position by noon, Tuesday, March 3, these men will leave the service of the company in a body. We have only asked exactly the same rules and rates already granted by the other Gould lines. You can reach us at Laclede Hotel, this city."

I fail to discern in the language of these dispatches any evidence of ulterior or sinister purpose. They appear to me to be the usual and ordinary attempt to appeal to all available influence and power to accomplish a desired purpose.

In this connection it is observed that in this last and final appeal to what was probably supposed by the defendants to be powers behind the throne, the defendants submitted no other claims or demands, except those relating to "working rules and wages."

Other facts and arguments have been urged upon the attention of the court by able counsel representing both sides of this controversy, all of which have received careful consideration by the court, but the principles already laid down, the observations made and conclusions reached are not materially affected by them. They will, therefore, not be specifically adverted to.

It remains that this court would not interfere with the exercise of the right on the part of complainant's employees, who are members of the Brotherhoods in question, of quitting the service of complainant in a body, by restraining the defendants who are officers of the Brotherhood, from exercising the functions of their office prerequisite thereto, and that, at the present time, there is no reason shown for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with interstate commerce, or the mail service of the United States.

The categorical and unevasive denial, both in sworn answer and separate affidavits by each of the defendants of any conspiracy, intent or purpose like that charged in the bill of complaint, and the apparently candid and ingenious avowal of no such intention or purpose in the future, together with the appeal made to the honorable record of the Brotherhoods in question in connection with labor disturbances in the past and to

their professed belief in accomplishing their purposes by peaceful and lawful means, only induce this court to believe and confidently expect that whatever measure may be adopted in the present emergency, no coercive, violent or other unlawful means will be resorted to by the defendants or any one acting for them or under their direction, to accomplish their purposes; nevertheless this court will be in session and retain jurisdiction of this cause, if desired, so that in the event of an molestation of or interference with interstate commerce or the mail service, all its lawful powers may be invoked to restrain the same, with the confident assurance that they will be fearlessly and effectively exercised.

I cannot conclude this opinion without expressing the sincere wish of the court, that if the parties are unable to adjust their differences by such mutual concessions as are necessary to that end, the offer made in open court by defendants' counselto submit the questions in dispute to the board of arbitration provided for by the Act of Congress of 1896, will be speedily accepted and another instance of rational and intelligent adjustment of a business difficulty be exhibited to an expectant public.

The motion for preliminary injunction is denied, and the ad interim restraining order heretofore made is vacated.

NOTE.-Right to Enjoin Strikes on the Ground of Interference with Interstate Commerce.-The court in the principal case fails to discuss at all adequately the question stated as the subject of this annotation, although in the pleadings and brief of the plaintiff that question was involved in its main contention.

Although, at common law and in the earlier decisions, both of this country and of England, a combination of employees especially for the purpose of striking was held to be an illegal conspiracy, the law to-day is otherwise, the weight of authority holding that employees have the right to combine, and by lawful means to enforce legitimate demands upon their employer. How far employees or labor unions can go in this direction is not so well settled as the court seems to infer in the principal case as many authorities not cited in the opinion show a tendency to recognize the illegal and tyrannical nature of such combinations under some circumstances. We do not care, however, to discuss this broad but interesting phase of this great question, but to confine our discussion to a determination of just how far these organizations can go in their interference of interstate commerce.

In the excellent work by Mr. Beach on Monopolies and Industrial Trusts, Sec. 110, the learned author remarks: "Construing several clauses of the interstate commerce law with Section 5440 of the Revised Statutes, it follows that a combination of persons, without regard to their occupation, which will have the effect to defeat the provisions of the interstate commerce law, inhibiting discrimination in the transportation of freight and passengers, and further to restrain the trade and commerce of the country, will be obnoxious to the penalties therein prescribed." In support of this statement the learned author cites the case of Waterhouse v. Comer, 55 Fed. Rep. 149. In this case rule 12 of the association of locomotive engineers, styled the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers,

which provides "that when an issue has been sustained by the grand chief (against any railroad) it shall be recognized as a violation of obligations if a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers who may be employed on a railroad run in connection with or adjacent to said road, to handle the property belonging to said railroad or system in any way that may benefit said company with which the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers are at issue, until the grievances or issues or differences of any nature or kind has been amicably settled,"-was held to be an agreement plainly in restraint of trade or commerce, and violative of section 1 of the Act of Congress of July 2, 1890, known as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, providing that "every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or nations, is hereby declared to be illegal." The court in this case uses very strong language in defining the relation of labor unions to interstate commerce, stronger we believe than appears in any other opinion that has come to our notice. The court said:

"It is true that in any conceivable strike upon the transportation lines of this country, there will be interference with and restraint of interstate commerce. This will be true also of strikes upon telegraph lines. In the presence of these statutes which we have recited, and in view of the intimate interchange of commodities between people of several states of the Union, it will be practically impossibly hereafter for a body of men to combine to hinder and delay the work of the transportation company without becoming amendable to the provisions of these statutes. It therefore follows that a strike or a boycott, if it was over effective, can be so no longer. Organized labor, when injustice has been done or threatened to its membership, will find its useful and valuable mission in presenting to the courts of the country a strong and resolute protest and a petition for redress against unlawful trusts and combinations which do unlawful wrong to it."

So also has it been held that a combination of locomotive engineers, the object of which is to obtain ends by interfering with the transportation of interstate commerce, is a conspiracy. Toledo, etc., R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania Co., 54 Fed. Rep. 730.

This case

is quite an important one. It holds that the action of a labor union in endeavoring to induce and procure the officers of a common carrier corporation subject to the provisions of the interstate commerce act, and its locomotive engineers, to refuse to receive, handle and haul interstate freight from another like common carrier in order to injure the latter, is a combination or conspiracy to commit the misdemeanor described by section 10 of the interstate commerce act, and, if any person engaged in it does an act in furtherance thereof, all combining for the purpose are guilty of criminal conspiracy. So also a court may restrain even the calling of such a strike. Thus, in the case we have just mentioned, it was held that an injunction might issue against the officers of the union to restrain them from giving the order or signal that will result in what is called a "sympathetic" strike. Or as this case also holds, if such officers have already issued such an order, the court may by mandatory injunction compel them to rescind the same. In this case the root of the whole difficulty lay in the observance by the labor union of rule 12, which is the same as that which was condemned in the case of Waterhouse v. Comer, which we have already noticed. This case, however, distinguishes between "strikes" and

"boycotts," holding the former legal, but the latter illegal.

It may, therefore, be held as a general rule that under the interstate commerce act (U. S. Stat. 379), and the amendments thereto, providing that it shall be unlawful for persons to combine or conspire to hinder or obstruct commerce, and that connecting lines shall not refuse to transfer or handle cars, a combination or conspiracy to hinder, obstruct or interfere with the business or management of any such railroad company, by threats or coercion of any character, will be enjoined. United States v. Amalgamated Council, 54 Fed. Rep. 994, 26 L. R. A. 158, affirmed, 157 Fed. Rep. 85; Re Debs, 158 U. S. 564; Southern California R. R. v. Rutherford, 62 Fed. Rep. 796; United States v. Elliott, 62 Fed. Rep. 801; Chicago, etc., R. R. v. Railroad, 34 Fed. Rep. 481; United States v. Agler, 62 Fed. Rep. 824.

The case of Re Debs, 158 U. S. 725, when stripped of all surplusage will be found to hold squarely against the position taken by the courts in the principal case. In the Debs case, the injunction which was sustained by the supreme court prevented even the calling of a strike calculated to interfere with interstate commerce, which the court in the principal case holds cannot be done. This was a case very much like the principal one in one respect that the conspiracy to strike did not originate in an agreement of the employees of the complainant road themselves, but by officers and committees of the whole brotherhood ordering them to strike, independent of their desires in the matter. The injunction in the Debs case was granted against the officers of the American Railway Union, and all persons combining with them, to desist and refrain from hindering, obstructing, or stopping any of the business of certain railroads as common carriers of passengers, freight, or mails; and from compelling or inducing by threats, persuasive force, or violence, any of the employees to refuse or fail to perform any of their duties as employees in any of the roads engaged in interstate commerce, and from ordering, directing, aiding or abetting any person to commit any of said acts. The United States Court sustained this injunction. See, also, as sustaining this position, Thomas v. R. R., 62 Fed. Rep. 803; United States v. Patterson, 55 Fed. Rep. 605. Contra: Arthur v. Oakes, 63 Fed. Rep. 310.

BOOK REVIEWS.

HAWLEY AND MCGREGOR ON REAL PROPERTY.

One of the most enjoyable books for review that have been before us for some time is a comparatively compact little work on real property edited conjointly by John G. Hawley and Malcolm McGregor. This work is in a measure, as theļauthors say, "an innovation." Existing works on the law of real property have given more space to law which is obsolete, except when resurrected for the purpose of quizzing a student, and much less often than this volume to those branches of the law of real property which are constantly the subject of discussion before courts of last resort at the present time. The work, therefore, should be especially attractive to the general practitioner in search for some light on some modern question of real property, as a most accessible and convenient reference. It is rather discouraging to the practical lawyer to be compelled to dig his way through the dust of centuries before he can find out what the law is to-day. But, however valuable this work may be to the lawyer it is of still greater value

.

to the law student, who with uncertain tread is just beginning to see his way through some of the labyrinthian mysteries of the law. To him this work can be likened to "pursue" our metaphor) to a great clearing in a jungle of perplexities where he can find the exact trend of the law without being baffled and hindered with the undergrowth of centuries. As a special mark of merit we call attention to the use of black type headings to each section stating in terse and accurate phraseology the proposition sought to be elaborated therein. We unhesitatingly recommend this work especially for the use of law students. Bound in one volume of 609 pages and published by the Sprague Publishing Co., Detroit, Mich.

HUMOR OF THE LAW.

"Are you aware of any mitigating circumstances in your case?" asked a magistrate of a negro convicted of stealing a coat.

"Yes, sah; lots ob 'em. Ef I had time, jedge, I could talk to you for a week on dat subject."

"If you know of any mitigating circumstance, please state it."

"Yes, sah; I'll tell you ob one right now, sah. How easy would it have been for me to bring my family inter disgrace and misery, sah. I jess remained single. I nebber married, sah. Anudder mitigatin, circumstance am"

"Officer, remove the prisoner."

The late Thomas B. Reed was a great lover of a good story, and no one enjoyed telling one better than he. He was very fond of relating the following one on himself and always seemed to delight in it as much as his hearers.

When he applied for admission to the bar, he was examined as to his qualifications by the judge of the county court alone. After answering a number of questions in a satisfactory manner, he was asked by the judge whether the legal tender act, which had just been passed by congress, was, in his opinion, constitutional. Young Reed had never given the matter any consideration, but, being unwilling to display his ignorance, replied confidently that it was.

"Well, I will admit you to the bar," said the judge. "I examined another young man this morning, and asked him the same question. He replied that it was not constitutional, I admitted him, too. I am always glad to admit young gentlemen to the bar who can answer such grave constitutional questions off hand."

BOOKS RECEIVED.

Collier on Bankruptcy, Fourth Edition. The Law and Practice in Bankruptcy under the National Bankruptcy Act of 1898, as Amended by the Act of February 5, 1903. By William H. Hotchkiss, Referee in Bankruptcy at Buffalo, N. Y., and Lecturer on the Law of Bankruptcy in the Buffalo Law School. Albany, N. Y., Matthew Bender. 1903, Sheep, Price $6.30. Review will follow.

John Marshall. Life, Character and Judicial Services, as Portrayed in the Centenary and Memorial Addresses and Proceedings Throughout the United States on Marshall Day, 1901, and in the Classic Orations of Binney, Story, Phelps, Waite and Rawle. Compiled and Edited with an Introduction by John F. Dillon, Illustrated with Portraits and Fac-simile. In three volumes. Chicago, Callaghan & Company, 1903. Price $9.00. Review will follow.

4. APPEAL Leave to Plead. - On an appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to a partial defense, it must be assumed that leave to plead was first obtained. — Gabay v. Doane, 79 N. Y. Supp. 312.

5. APPEAL AND ERROR- Copy of Bond. - Where, on an appeal by defendants from a judgment recovered by plaintiff in a suit on a liquor bond, a copy of the bond is not inserted in the, statement of facts, the judgment will be reversed.-Bowden v. Davis, Tex., 71 S. W. Rep. 47.

6. APPEAL AND ERROR-Instructions.-A judgment will not be reversed on appeal because of the refusal of instructions requested, where the record does not contain the entire charge given.-Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Tynan U. S. C. C. of App., Ninth Circuit, 119 Fed. Rep. 288.

7. APPEAL AND ERROR- Mortgage Notes.-A note con. taining a clause waiving all defenses on the ground o any extension of the time of payment, held not negotiable.-Evans v. Odem, Ind., 65 N. E. Rep. 755.

8. APPEAL AND ERROR Review. An exception "to each of your honor's refusals to charge my several re quests" was not sufficiently definite and specific to warrant review on appeal.-Benedict v. Deshel, 79 N. Y. Supp 205.

9. APPEAL AND ERROR-Statement of Facts.-In a civil case, where a statement of facts is required, the formal statement, signed by the judge, or by the parties or their counsel, may be waived by consent, or acquiescence.-Bernhardt v. Curtis, La., 33 So. Rep. 125.

10. APPEAL AND ERROR - Suspension of Decree. - The perfecting of an appeal from decree in equity, and filing and approval of a supersedeas bond, suspend such decree. -Riley Bros. Co. v. Melia, Neb., 92 N. W. Rep. 913.

11. ARBITRATION AND AWARD Condition in Bill of Sale. Provision in a bill of sale for arbitration held not to make an award of arbitrators a condition precedent to a right of action. — Dickson Mfg. Co. v. American Locomotive Co., U S. O. C., M. D. Pa., 119 Fed. Rep. 488.

12. ARREST-Jurisdiction. - A person under arrest, rẻ. moved for safe-keeping from the jail of the parish where the crime was committed to that in another parish, is still under the jurisdiction of the judge and sheriff of the former parish.-State v. Gray, La., 33 So. Rep. 108.

13. ARREST Without Warrant. - Under Code, § 5196, where an officer arrests without warrant one who has in fact committed the offense charged, the reasonableness of the information on which he acted is immaterial. -State v. Phillips, Iowa, 92 N. W. Rep. 876.

14. ASSIGNMENTS — Contract of Employment. - An instrument executed by a corporation held to operate as an equitable assignment to its agent of a designated per cent on the sums realized from sales made by the agent. -Leupold v. Weeks, Md., 53 Atl. Rep. 937.

15. ASSIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS Trust Deed. - Where a trust deed for benefit of creditors con. tained no provision for the care of the property after the time limited for the trust, it cannot be held to terminate on the expiration of such time.-Shirk v. Trundle, Md., 53 Atl. Rep. 928.

16. ATTACHMENT-Damages. In an action for wrongful attachment, it was not error to allow defendant to testify as to the value of the attached goods; he having shown himself qualified to so testify.-Cline v. Hackbarth, Tex., 71 S. W. Rep. 48.

17. ATTACHMENT-Property Subject.-The interest of a cestui trust is not the subject of attachment.-Fiske v. Parke, 79 N. Y. Supp. 327.

que

18. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT Unconscionable Fee. Agreement between attorney and client for an attorney's fee of 50 per cent of the recovery held unconscionable.In re Fitzsimons, 79 N. Y. Supp. 194.

19. BANKRUPTCY-Action by Trustee.-Where a trustee In bankruptcy resorts to the state courts to recover prop. erty of a bankrupt fraudulently conveyed, he is entitled to all the relief that would be afforded to any other party.-Sheldon v. Parker, Neb., 92 N. W. Rep. 923.

20. BANKRUPTCY - Concealment of Property.-A bank. rupt held properly refused a discharge on the ground that he knowingly and fraudulently concealed property from his trustee in failing to schedule land the title to which stood in the name of his son, but which was acquired with inoney of the bankrupt and occupied by him under such circumstances as to establish the fact that the son held the title in trust for him. -Hudson v. Mercantile Nat. Bank, U. S. C. C. of App., 119 Fed. Rep. 346. 21. BANKRUPTCY-Discharge. If a bankrupt willfully and fraudulently conceals any of his property from the trustee, he is not entitled to a discharge. — In re Leslie, U. S. D. C., N. D. N. Y., 119 Fed. Rep. 406.

23. BANKRUPTCY

22. BANKRUPTCY Excluded Testimony.-Under gen eral orders in bankruptcy No. 37, held the duty of a referee in bankruptcy to take down all excluded testimoney and make the same a part of the record.-In re Lipset, U. S. D. C., S. D. N. Y., 119 Fed. Rep. 379. Exemptions. - A bankrupt may claim his exemptions, allowed by the laws of Georgia, from the proceeds of property which he had assigned for the benefit of creditors, but which, after the bankruptcy, was turned over to his trustee as a part of his estate. - Bashinski v. Talbott, U. 8. C. C. of App., Fifth Circuit, 119 Fed. Rep. 337.

24. BANKRUPTCY-Liability of Stockholders.-Creditors of an insolvent New Jersey corporation, claiming causes of action against stockholders by virtue of Laws N. J. 1896, ch. 185, §§ 21, 48, 49, held entitled to reduce their claims against the corporation to judgments. In re Remington Automobile & Motor Co., U. 8. D. C., N. D N. Y., 119 Fed. Rep. 441.

25. BANKRUPTCY - Preference.-Under Bank. Act. § 60, 30 Stat. 562 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3445), an intent on the part of an insolvent to give a preference held necessary in order to create one. - Benedict v. Deshel, 79 N. Y., Supp. 205.

to defraud creditors, loses the whole consideration paid on bankruptcy of grantor within four months.-Johnson v. Cohn, 79 N. Y. Supp. 139.

27. BANKRUPTCY-Provable Claims.-The facts that the cashier of a national bank was prosecuted and convicted of a misapplication of the bank's funds in discounting a large amount of comparatively worthless notes for a customer, and that the bank's receiver sued for and recovered the penalty in the cashier's bond, do not affect the validity of the notes nor the bank's ownership thereof; and the receiver may prove the same in bankruptcy against the estate of an indorser.-In re Edson, U. S. D C., D. Ver., 119 Fed. Rep. 487.

28. BANKRUPTCY Seat in Stock Exchange.-A seat in stock exchange having a considerable value held not exempt under the bankruptcy act, though exempt by decision of a state court on definitions of property.-Page v. Edmunds, U. S. S. C., 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 200.

30. COMMERCE · Delivery Agent. - Tax on delivery agent for nonresident manufacturer held invalid, as an attempt to regulate interstate commerce.- Caldwell v. State of North Carolina, U. S. S. C., 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 229. 31. COMMERCE - Fixing Rates.-Railroad commission of Arkansas cannot, without violating the commerce clause of the federal constitution, fix rates for continuous transportation of goods between two points within the state, where a large part of the route is through Indian Territory.-Hanley v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., U. S. S. C., 23 Sup. Ct Rep. 214.

32. COMMERCE License of Telegraph Poles. - Ordinance imposing license fee on telegraph poles and wires n a city held not obnoxious to the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Borough of New Hope, U. S. S. C., 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 204.

33. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Beer Inspection.-The beer inspection law Rev. St. 1899, ch. 117, art. 4, providing for the payment of inspection fees by the manufacturers of beer for use inside the state, is in violation of Const. U. S. Amend. 14. -Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. Eby, Mo., 71 S. W. Rep. 52.

34. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class Legislation.. - Acts 1901, ch. 133, providing terms on which sales in bulk of merchandise may be made, held not void as class legislation. Neas v. Borches, Tenn., 71 S. W. Rep. 50. 35. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Due Process. Code, art. 81, § 144, held not invalid as taking property without due process of law, for failing to provide the giving of a notice of the assessment of corporate stock to the owner thereof.-Corry v. City of Baltimore, Md., 53 Atl. Rep. 942. 36. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Process Due.-Landowners who are assessed for benefits under the drainage law are not deprived of their property without due process of law by the issuance of interest-bearing bonds to defray the cost of constructing drains, and the postponement of their assessments and divisions thereof into as many parts as the bonds have years to run, as authorized by Rev. Code, § 1474.-Erickson v. Cass County, N. Dak., 92 N. W. Rep. 841.

37. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Due Process.-Service of order to show cause in contempt on attorney for defend. ant held void, as not due process of law.-Goldie v. Goldie, 79 N. Y. Supp. 268.

39. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Sales of Stock in Margins.Const. Cal. art 4, § 26, avoiding all contracts for sales of

stock on margins, held not an unconstitutional interference with the right of contract.-Otis v. Parker, U. S. S. C., 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 168.

- The 40. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Separate Schools. operation of Pol. Code Cal. § 1662, providing for the segregation of Chinese children in separate schools, held not in violation of Const. U. S. Amend. 14.-Wong Him v. Callahan, U. S. C. C., N. D. Cal., 119 Fed. Rep. 381. 41. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- Statutes. The courts will not inquire into the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of persons not affected thereby. - Turnquist v. Cass County Drain Comrs., N. Dak., 92 N. W. Rep. 852. 42. CONTRACTS- Consideration. Where a party to a Contract supposes that the thing he contracts for and prom ses to pay for will be beneficial to him, he cannot avoid his promise on the strength of a subsequent discovery that it was really nonessential or of no value.Casserleigh v. Wood, U. 8. C. C. of App., Eighth Circuit, 119 Fed. Rep. 308.

43. CONTRACTS-Construction. A contractor having followed the specifications without the desired result, on being ordered to reconstruct, held entitled to recover therefor.-Dwyer v. City of New York, 79 N. Y. Supp. 17. 44. CONTRACTS-Failure to Complete.-In an action on a building contract, provided that the building should be completed by a certain time, the fact that it was not so completed was no defense, when it appeared that the delay was caused by the fault of the owner.-Ocorr & Rugg Co. v. City of Little Falls, 79 N. Y. Supp. 251.

45. CONTRACTS-Foreign Corporation. - Obligation of contract calling for the transaction of business within the state by a foreign corporation, which has not filed a copy of its charter with the secretary of state, held not impaired by Rev. St. Wis. 1898, §§ 1770b, 4978, making such contracts void on the corporation's part.-Diamond Glue Co. v. United States Glue Co., U. S. S. C., 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 206.

46. CONTRACrs- Illegality of Consideration. -A contract may be sustained and enforced, although an executory agreement which formed a part of the consideration therefor was void, where a further consideration has been paid and accepted. Washington Irr. Co. v. Krutz, U. S. C. C. of App., Ninth Circuit, 119 Fed. Rep.

279.

47. COPYRIGHTS- Telegraphic Quotations. Market quotations, gathered and transmitted by a telegraph company, and printed on a tape by tickers in the office of its customers, are not copyrightable as literary property-National Tel. News. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., U. S. C. C. of App., Seventh Circuit, 119 Fed. Rep. 294.

48. CORPORATIONS-Demand on Directors. A stock. holder cannot sue the corporation and its officers, to restrain it from paying certain taxes, where there has been no application to the officers to relieve the corporation from the burden of the taxes.-Stewart v. Washington & A. S. S. Co., U. S. S. C., 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 161.

49. CORPORATIONS-Merger.-Where a street railroad is merged into another, the latter assuming the former's indebtedness, the merged corporation becomes extinct, except as to obligations of creditors previously existing. -City of New York v. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 79 N. Y. Supp. 319. 50. CORPORATIONS - Ultra Vires.- A foreign corpora tion, with right under its charter not sanctioned by the laws of the state, will not be prevented from doing a legitimate business under that portion of its charter which conforms to the state laws. State v. New Orleans Warehouse Co., La., 33 So. Rep. 81. 51. COSTS-Foreclosure Suit. Where, in a foreclosure suit, a tenant of the mortgagors was joined as defendant, and disclaimed, and the mortgagors did not appear, the tenant was not entitled to costs against his codefendants. -Halpin v. Donovan, Mich., 92 N. W. Rep. 782.

52. COUNTIES - Taxpayers. Any interested taxpayer held entitled to sue to prohibit the negotiations of void bonds issued by county commissioners in payment of road construction.-Board of Comrs. of Owen County v. Spangler, Ind., 65 N. E. Rep. 743.

53. COURTS-Federal Question.— A judgment of a state court upholding a statute claimed to violate the federal constitution held not reviewable in the Supreme Court of the United States where the state court declined to pass on the federal question. Layton v. State of Missouri, U. S. S. C., 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 137.

54. COURTS-Full Faith and Credit.-Decision of state court that a statute of another state is inapplicable held not a decision denying full faith and credit to such statute.-Johnson v. New York Life Ins. Co., U. S. S. C., 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 194.

55. COVENANTS-Eviction. There must be an eviction before there is a right of action on a covenant of warranty.-Boulden v. Wood, Md., 53 Atl. Rep. 911.

56. CRIMINAL LAW-Certiorari.-Writs of certiorari and prohibition, under the supervisory jurisdiction of the court, may be issued after an appeal has been abandoned.-State v. Pettigrew, La., 33 So. Rep. 110.

57. CRIMINAL LAW -Change of Venue.-On change of venue, until the prisoner has been transferred, the court granting the change can reopen the proceedings.- State v. Gray, La., 33 So. Rep. 108.

58. CRIMINAL LAW Refusal to Appear Before Grand Jury. The fact that one accused of murder declined to go before the grand jury could not be used against him. -Rogers v. State, Tex., 70 S. W. Rep. 18.

59. CRIMINAL TRIAL-Character of Defendant.-Argument of district attorney that defendant's reputation for peacefulness should be presumed to be bad, from his failure to prove it to be good, held erroneous.-Cline v. State, Tex., 71 S. W. Rep. 23.

60. CRIMINAL TRIAL-Insanity.-The defense of insanity on a trial for murder is a legal defense, and an instruction that it is viewed with disfavor, and placing it under the ban of disapproval by the court, is error. — State v. Barry, N. Dak., 92 N. W. Rep. 809.

61. CRIMINAL TRIAL-Questions of Fact. In a trial for a felony, the judge has no power to determine any of the questions of fact involved in the issue; that power belonging exclusively to the jury.- Goldsberry v. State, Neb., 92 N. W. Rep. 906

62. CUSTOMS DUTIES-Sugar.- Russian laws regulating production and exportation of sugar held to allow bounty of such exportation which, under Act Cong. July 24, 1897 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1625], subjects such sugar on its importation to an additional duty. — Downs v. United States, U. S. S. C., 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 222.

63. DAMAGES Amount.- Where the court of claims found that claimant's crop was destroyed, but the damages awarded were lower than the lowest estimate shown by the evidence, and the court did not view the premises, the judgment was erroneous, because without foundation in the evidence. - Dibble v. State, 79 N. Y. Supp. 79.

64. DEATH-Damages.-The complaint, in an action for wrongful death under a statute which authorizes the jury to give such damages, pecuniary and exemplary, as they shall deem fair and just, need not allege what part, or whether any, of the damages prayed for are claimed as exemplary.-Peers v. Nevada Power, Light & Water Co., U. S. C. C., D. Nev., 119 Fed. Rep. 400.

65. DEEDS-Fraud. - Unless grantee in a deed makes statements inducing mistake on the part of the grantor, or with knowledge of such mistake keeps silent, he is not guilty of fraud, authorizing cancellation. - Stewart v. Dunn, 79 N. Y. Supp. 123.

66. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION-Disguised Donations. -The ancestor's intention to give an extra portion to an heir must be indicated in an unequivocal manner, and will not be presumed from the fact that the donations were made under the guise of contracts of sale.-Clark v. Hedden, La., 33 So. Rep. 116.

67. DOMICILE-Change of Venue. — On application for change of venue under Code, § 8501, statements of a defendant as to his intention in leaving his usual place of residence, and other facts in reference thereto, are not