Page images

Mason v.Cattley,dig. Eng. H.Ct. Ch.
Div., 35.

Matthews v. Memphis, etc., R. Co.
dig. U. S. S. C., 36.

Meath v. Phillips Co., dig. U. S. S.
C., 137.

Mechanics' Bank v. Shouse, dig. S.

C. Pa., 137.

Meckley's Appeal, dig. S. C. Pa.,

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

Taylor v. Hemingray, dig. Ky. Ct App., 138.

Teutonia F. Ins. Co. v. Mund, dig. S. C. Pa., 218.

Texas, etc. R. Co. v. Levi, dig. S. C. Tex., 198.

Texas, etc. R. Co., v. D'Milley, dig.
S.C. Tex., 499.

The Miller, etc. Co. v. Comme, dig.
S. C. N. J., 98.
The Joseph Cooper, Jr., dig. U. S.
S. C., 19.

The Connemara, dig. U. S. S. C., 19.
The Tornado, dig. U. S. S. C., 19.
Thomas v. Joslyn, dig. S. C. Minn.,


[blocks in formation]

Trussell v. Scarlett, dig. U. S. S. C.,
D. Mo., 499.

Tucker v. Hamlin, dig. S. C. Tex.,
379, 380.

Turner v. Stewart, in full, S. C. Mo., 472.

Tulton v. Vith, dig. U. S. S. C., 138.

Union Mf'g Co. v. Morrissey, dig. S.
C. Ohio, 97.

Union Ins. Co. v. Alleghany, in
full, S. C. Pa., 374.
United States v. Ambrose, dig. U.
S. S. C., 117.

United States v. Beebe, in full, U.
S. C. C., E. D. Ark., 77.
United States v. Forty-three, ete.,
dig. U. S. S. C., 118.

United States v. Gale, dig. U. S. S.
C., 419.

United States v. Hamilton, dig. U,
8. S. C., 418.

United States v. Stanley, dig. U. S.
S. C., 418.

Vance v. Vance, dig. U. S. S. C., 117.
Vance v. Vance, dig. U. S. S. C., 138.
Van Dolsen v. Mayer, in full, U. S.
C. C., S. D. N. Y., 23.

Van Steenwyck v. Washburn, in
full, S. C. Wis., 489.

Wade v. Hennessy, dig. S. C,Vt.,


Waite v. Matthews, dig. S. C. Mich.,

Walstrom v. Hopkins, dig. S. C.
Pa,, 358.

Wapello Co. v. Same, dig. S. C.
Iowa, 338.

Warton v. Warton, dig. Ky. Ct.
App., 437.

Warren v. King, dig. U. S. S.C., 35.
Washington, etc., R. Co. v. District

of Columbia, dig. U. S. S. C., 157. Watson v. Balch, in full, S.C. Kan.,


Webster v. Smith, in full. S. C. Mo.,


Wells v. Oregon, etc., Co., in full,
U. S. C. C. D. Oreg., 471,
Welsh v. Canfield, dig, Md. Ct.App.,

West Portland, etc., v. Lownsdale,
in full, U. S. C. C. D. Oreg., 227.
Weyrich v. Hobelman, dig. S. C.
Neb., 138.

Wheeler v. Ins. Co., dig. S. C. N. H.,

Whitney v. First Nat. Bank, in full,
S. C. Vt., 235.

White v. Dresser, cr. S. J. C. Mass.,

Whitcomb v. Miller, dig. S. C. Kan., 457.

Wiebeler v. Ins. Co., dig. S.C. Minn.

Williams v. Jackson, in full, U. S.S.
C., 148.

Williams v. Rogers, dig. S. C. Tex.,

Willis v. Moore, in full, S. C. Tex.,

Wilkins v. Thorne, dig. Md. Ct.
App., 177.

Wilkins v. Ellett, dig. U. S. S. C.,


Wilks v. Broms, dig. Md. Ct. App., 478.

Wilson v. Wilson, dig, S. C. Cal., 336.

Wilson v Ins. Co., dig. Md.Ct. App.,

Wilson v. Ins. Co., dig. Md. Ct.
App., 499.

Winkelman v. Railroad Co., dig. S.
C. Iowa, 456.

Wrought Iron Bridge Co. v. Town
of Utica, in full, Ü. S. C. C. N. D.
III., 250.

Woodford v. Lyon Gravel, etc., Co.,
dig. S. C. Cal., 177.
Wolhfahrt v. Beckett, in full, N. Y.
Ct. App., 53.

Zell's Appeal, dig. S. C. Pa., 476.
Zeil's Appeal, dig. S. Ct. Pa., 239,
Zonder v. Commonwealth, dig.
C. Pa., 198.

[merged small][ocr errors]


Assignment of Bills and Notes by Delivery-Liability of Transferrer when Same are Fictitious, Forged or Altered. B. B. Boone, 286.

Chattel Mortgage-Stock-in-Trade. Right of Mortgagee to Sell and Reinvest under the Mortgage. Wm. Archer Cocke, 222.

Compositions with Creditors. Elisha Greenhood, 302. Conditional Subscriptions. Adelbert Hamilton, 481. Conditional Conveyances. E. W. Cunningham, 187. Contracts on Unread Conditions. Irish Law Times, 7. Corporations-Power of Expulsion. Addison G. McKean, 205.

Criminal Attempts. Irish Law Times, I., 26; II., 45. Defective Covenants. George W. Warvelle, 362. Directing Verdicts. Addison G. McKean, 427.

Does a Bonus Make a Loan Usurious? Isaac N.
Payne, 102.

Expectancy-Conveyance of Release.
Beaver, 67.

William H.

Garnishment, Funds in the Hands of an Administrator. Muratt W. Hopkins, 161.

Ignorance of Law. Jos. A. Joyce, 422.

Imputable Negligence. Muratt W. Hopkins, 243. Insanity as a Defense in Criminal Cases. R. E. Ball,


Liability for Injuries to Employees. John F. Kelly, 485.

Liability for Overholding by Under Tenants. Irish Law Times, 225.

Liability of Joint Promissors as Affected by Payments Made by One of Them. W. T. Brown, 201. Liability of Telegraph Companies to Sendees of Mes. sages. Joe Howell, 466.

Married Women. James M. Kerr, 462.

Married Women's Debts. John F. Kelly, II., 1. Marriage Settlements. Edmund P. Kendrick, 386. Merger in Enforcement of Mortgage and Attachment. W. W. Thornton, 402.

Mistake of a Legal Right. Charles A. Bucknam, 22. Negligent Keeping of Animals. Justice of the Peace, 307.

On the Degrees or Kinds of Negligence in our Present American Law. Wm. W. Keysor, 261.

Partnership Exemptions. Van Syckel and Wells, 86.

Severance, to Ascertain a Chattel, not Absolute. Chas. A. Bucknam, 323.

Slander and Special Damage. Justice of the Peace, 105.

Stipulation for Attorney's Fees, in Promissory Notes. Isaac N. Payne, 282.

Stipulation in a Note to Pay Attorney's Fee. Control of Court Over, 241.

Stipulation to Pay Exchange in Negotiable Paper. Adelbert Hamilton, 146.

Strikes and Strikers in Their Legal Aspect. Canadian Law Times, 163.


on Agricultural Lands. W. W. Thornton, I., 42; II., 63.

Survival and Assignment of Actions. Addison G. McKean, 141.

The Consolidation of Corporations Existing Under the Laws of Different States. Charles B. Elliott, 382. The Literary Property of Authors. Geo. W. McCrary, 268.

The Measure of Interest. Elisha Greenhood, 122. The People-Constantatine v. Faber. Hugh Weightman, 83.

The Right to the Custody of Children. Irish Law Times, I., 325; II.. 345; III., 364.

The Two-Thirds Rule." Solicitor's Journal, 447. Unincorporated Associations. A. J. Donner, 342. User of Dangerous Instrumentalities for the Protection of Property. Irish Law Times, 181. Ways of Convenience. Canadian Law Times, 127. When is a Will Subscribed by Witnesses in the Testator's Presence? Elisha Greenhood, 442.

The Central Law Journal.

ST. LOUIS, JULY 6, 1883.


An important amendment to the Statute of Frauds is pending in the English Parliament. The Solicitor's Journal states the substance of the proposed enactment with some unfavorable comments, as follows:

"No time should be lost by the profession in studying Mr. Reid's Bill to amend the Statute of Frauds,' which passed a second reading on Wednesday last sub silentio; which is one of the very few bills not blocked by Mr. Warton; and which may now be considered as having just a chance of becoming law in a couple of months. By this bold little measure it is proposed to enact that where, by the Statute of Frauds, or any statutory amendment thereof, 'any contract ought to be in writing, or signed or sealed by any person,' any party to an action against whom the absence of such writing or signature is relied on may interrogate in writing or by word of mouth any other party to such action as to such contract, and require him to answer upon oath whether the same was made, and what were the terms thereof.' If it appears, either by such answer or otherwise by admission of such party,' that 'there was a contract otherwise sufficient in iaw,' such contract so stated or admitted is to be 'deemed a good contract, and capable of being enforced in law between the said parties, notwithstanding the same was not in writing, or signed or sealed, as required by law'--with a saving for the right to refuse to answer criminating questions. Clause 2 provides for answers by officers of corporations, trustees in bankruptcy, and liquidators of companies; and clause 3 provides that in this act the word action includes any proceeding in bankruptcy, or in the liquidation of any company, or in the administration of any estate;' and so ends this remarkably revolutionary project. The preamble to the bill sets forth that it is desirable to prevent justice being defeated by technicalities,' but it is, perhaps, even more important to prevent injus tice from being accomplished by means of perjury. The Statute of Frauds was, as the preamble thereto recites, enacted for prevention of many fraudulent practices, which are commonly endeavored to be upheld by perjury and subornation;' and we think the curious little bill before us, if passed into law, would result in increasing perjuries to an alarming extent, and dangerously confusing and disturbing the law of contract."

We cannot agree with our learned English cotemporary. It seems to us that the proposed measure tends distinctly in the interest of justice. It is entirely appropriate that one who seeks to take advantage of a techninicality should be required to substantiate his good faith by his oath. We think this legislation well worthy attention and imitation in his country.

Vol. 17-No. 1.



In the Journal of March 30, 1883, the English rules upon this subject were given coupled with the promise that the rules in the United States should follow.

The rule there stated is that if a married woman is not restrained by the instrument creating the separate estate, she receives an absolute title with all the incidents thereof, and is therefore a feme sole with respect to that estate, but not with respect to her person,1 and that all her contracts, made with respect to that property, including her bond, bill, note or other obligation are binding on her separate estate. On the other hand the principle, prevailing in most of the American courts, is that a married woman having separate estate, has no interest, control or power, but such as is expressly given by the instrument which created such estate, hence it follows that her powers are limited to the grant in the instrument. having a separate estate, contracts in writing, or

We have seen that a married woman's not in writing, are

binding on that estate when she expressly stipulates that the estate shall be charged therewith; that her bond, bill, note and contract in writing are binding on the separate estate when she does not expressly stipulate that they shall be charged thereon; and that all her other contracts or engagements are binding on the estate when they are made with reference to or upon the faith and credit of the separate estate, and whether they are or not, depends upon the circumstances of each case. Now, as a married woman can make a contract at law, which although not binding on herself, nor enforceable against her, is binding on her husband and enforceable against him, such as when she contracts for necessaries upon his failure to provide them, and when she contracts as his agent, under express or implied authority; and as she, having a separate estate, can make contracts with respect to such estate, enforceable in equity, which, although not binding on herself, will bind her separate estate, she can, therefore, occupy a dual capacity, namely, when she contracts so as to

1 The rule since the case of Peacock v. Monk, 2 Ves, 198.

« PreviousContinue »