NOTE-Contribution by Tortfeasor Proximately Liable.-In Union Stockyards Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 196 U. S. 217, 25 Sup. Ct. 226, 49 L. ed. 453, 2 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 525, it was said: "The general principle of law is well settled that one of several wrongdoers cannot recover against another wrongdoer, although he may have been compelled to pay all the damages for the wrong done. In many instances, however, cases have been taken out of this general rule, and it has been held inoperative in order that the ultimate loss may be visited upon the principal wrongdoer, who is made to respond for all the damages, where one less culpable, although legally liable to third persons, may escape the payment of damages assessed against him by putting the ultimate loss upon the one principally responsible for the injury done."

And it also has been held that where, of two parties, both are active participants in the commission of an injury, courts will not go into any inquiry to disentangle their respective faults, but the rule of no contribution by one to the other will be applied. Cincinnati R. Co.. v. Louisville

& N. R. Co., 97 Ky. 128, 30 S. W. 408.

And so where there is concurrence of negligence. Thus, in Central R. Co. v. Macon R. & L. Co., 9 Ga. App. 628, 71 S. E. 1076. Where injury arose from a grounded wire touching a cable it was said: "Under the theory of the fact here presented the light company's negligence in allowing the wire to become grounded elsewhere (than on the railroad's premises) would not have caused the homicide in this case, if the negligence for which the jury held the present plaintiff (railroad company) liable had not concurred with it, if the wire had not been allowed to sag and come in contact with the wire cable (on railroad's premises) or if the proper inspection had been made as to the portion of the wire located in the railway yards. Hence in this view of the case the negligence was truly concurring and there can be no action for contribution or indemnity."

But in Boston, W. H. & R. Co. v. Kendall, 178 Mass. 232, 59 N. E. 657, 51 L. R. A. 781, 86 Am. St. Rep. 478, it was held that where an employer was held liable to an employe for explosion of a boiler, the employer, though under duty to inspect the boiler, yet he could recover over against manufacturer on whose warranty he relied and this "whether the false warranty should be called a tort or breach of contract." And in Nashua Iron & S. Co. v. Worcester & N. R. Co., 62 N. H. 159, it was said that when one whose horse ran away, because frightened by a train, could recover from another actively causing the horse to become frightened, where the latter could by proper care have prevented the horse becoming frightened.

In a later case in New Hampshire Court it was held that where a railroad company was held liable to one injured because of dangerous condition of its track. This condition was brought about by one whose premises adjoined the track. The court so ruled that the question before the jury was whether the negligence of the defendant sued for contribution was the sole cause of the injury, or whether the negligence of the plaintiff's fellow servants, in the suit for the injury, was such cause, the record in said cause leaving this question open. Boston & M. R. Co., 71 N. H. 494, 53 Atl. 304.

In Consol. K. C., S. & R. Co., 45 Tex. Civ. App. 100, 99 S. W. 181, a railroad failing to warn a brakeman of the existence of a pipe across the track, sued the company maintaining the pipe. The court declared that the railroad which omitted to take precautions to warn its employe and the company maintaining the pipe were actively negligent and the court would not inquire as to which company was the tort feasor directly or proximately liable. This seems in accord with the doctrine declared by Texas Supreme Court holding that the two were in pari delicto as to each other. Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Nass, 94 Tex. 255.

In Scott v. Curtis, 195 N. Y. 424, 88 N. E. 794, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1147, it was held that if a pedestrian was injured because of the unsafe manner in which a cover was placed upon a coal hole in the sidewalk, by a coal dealer, he can, if not actively negligent, recover from the coal dealer for the loss thus caused, but if the accident arose in no way from the latter's negligence, then that was not the proximate cause of the accident.

It has been held that a gas company against which there was recovery for leakage of gas from a defective pipe was entitled to recover from a street railway whose negligent excavation induced the breaking of the pipe. Philadelphia Co. v. Central Traction Co., 165 Pa. 456, 30 Atl. 934.

And an electric lighting company recovered from a telephone company, where the latter in stringing its wires failed to take precautions against sagging of wires and thus preventing contact with electric company's wires. Fulton County G. & E. Co. v. Hudson R. Teleph. Co., 114 N. Y. Supp. 642, 130 App. Div. 343.

These cases prove, that, if the proximate cause can be clearly traced, ultimate liability will fall on the tort feasor responsible therefor, but, if notwithstanding the existence of such cause, yet if subsequently there can be ascertained fault, that proves concurrent negligence, contribution will be denied to him held liable to him who sues for injury C.

Relation of Lawyer to Court-Evidence— Divorce-Arrangement to procure evidence of past adultery by bargain with offender-Disapproved.

Is it proper for an attorney to bring an action for a divorce where the evidence of adultery is obtained as follows:

A, the wife, is living apart from B, her husband, for over a year. B, the husband, and his nephew have a cigar factory to which a woman comes after business hours, when the acts complained of are committed. A, the wife, endeavored to get evidence of the commission of such acts but was unable to obtain same with sufficient certainty to obtain decree of divorce.

a

Thereafter B, the husband, left New York, and is now living in Florida. He is now willing to permit the nephew, who was present when the said acts were committed, to testify against him if the wife releases him from all claims for future support for herself and children. Unless the wife consents to this arrangement the nephew will not testify, as he is under the control of B, the husband, and

The Executive Committee of the American Bar Association, which met in New York City January 4th, has voted to hold the next annual meeting of the Association at the Hotel Griswold, Eastern Point, New London, Conn., on September 3, 4 and 5, 1919. Other affiliated bodies will meet at the same place about the same time.

CORRESPONDENCE.

FREEDOM OF THE SEAS.

Editor Central Law Journal:

I am one of your subscribers for the last nine years. Always read your papers with great pleasure, deriving much benefit from some of the articles appearing therein. Up to date I have not commented on any of them to you. In your No. 24 of Vol. 87 appears an article with the caption "The League of Nations," by Viscount Grey. I suppose I would have paid no special attention to this article if I had not read lately several articles appearing in the daily papers which all point in the same direction, that is to "England's Supremacy on the Seas." If, as he truly states, militarism is an enemy of mankind and should be wiped out, does not the same rule apply to the Navalism practiced by England? In some of their late utterances English statesmen have publicly declared that England cannot and will not give up her naval program and must keep control of the seas, that England, being an island nation, cannot give that power out of her hands.

We have won this war. Shall we now be satisfied with a minor position on the waters? Does not most of our business depend on our

export facilities? We cannot use up, here in our own country, what we produce, but depend on the opening of new, foreign markets. Beyond Canada, which by the way is part of the English empire, is the ice; across the southern border is Mexico and then come some petty republics which, being in a tropical climate, have more than they need and therefore too, are export nations, if we may call them nations at all. The trade connections between North and South America are by water.

No. We do not have it necessary to depend on England's protection. Let us be frank as it behooves a great nation. We must have our share of the trade with the rest of the world which is "mainly by water for us, just as much as for England." We must be our own masters, securing this trade with our "own" ships and have the "Stars and Stripes" fly from "OUR" mastheads in all harbors. We want a navy second to none, both for trade and protection.

asked him if the money was destined to aid the enemy in any manner.

The Irishman scratched his head.

"Is the addressee an alien enemy?" demanded the clerk.

"Be jabers, I don't know at all, at all," was the reply. "She's me mother-in-law."

"You don't seem to feel so enthusiastic as usual about speech-making."

"Well," answered Senator Sorghum, "times have changed and it isn't so easy for a man in a silk hat and a frock coat to stand out before a lot of men in khaki uniforms or overalls and assert that he is saving the country all by himself."-Washington Star.

Secretary Tumulty said recently:

"It's astonishing how many thousands of requests for army commissions come to the White House with every mail. A good many men seem to think that an army commission is a safe and highly paid sinecure.

"Yes, a good many men are like the chap who was after a consulship.

"So you're after the consulship to Tobaga, eh?' a friend said to him.

"'Yep, with both feet,' the chap answered. "Is a consulship hard work?'

Arthur Letts tells a good one at his own expense:

He was staying in a large provincial town when he heard that Mr. Smith, a friend of his, was at a neighboring hotel, so he rang up his hotel (as he thought).

"Is Mr. Smith there?" he inquired. "No, he is not," came the response. "Well, has he engaged rooms?" "No; we don't reserve rooms here. come, first served, is the rule," came the sharp and somewhat airy reply.

First

"Can you tell me if he will stay with you when he reaches the town?"

"It's possible he may, but we can't say." "Look here," roared Letts, "you're the most impudent jack-in-office that ever spoilt his master's business. Go away and tell someone who knows more about the business of the hotel to come and speak to me."

There was a chuckle at the other end. "This isn't a hotel, it's the county jail," said the voice. St. Louis Republic.

1. Attorney and Client-Employment.-While an attorney is not ordinarily obliged to accept employment, and should not do so when press of other matters will prevent immediate action, his acceptance of employment under such conditions is not a ground for disbarment.-People v. Wing, Ill., 120 N. E. 451.

2. Bankruptcy-Act of.-A debtor's written admission of inability to pay his debts, and willingness on that ground to be adjudged a bankrupt. is sufficient to support an adjudication, without regard to his solvency or insolvency.In re Wellesley, U. S. D. C., 252 Fed. 854.

3. Conditional Sale Contract.-Appointment of receiver by bankruptcy court does not oust bankrupt's title to his property seized by receiver, and where property is sold under contract retaining title in vendor until payment of purchase money, his title is not lost by seizure of property by purchaser's receiver in bankruptcy.-Vaughn-Carlton Co. v. Studebaker Corporation of America, Ga., 97 S. E. 99.

4. Partnership.-Where it did not appear that the bankrupt was insolvent when he bought out his copartner or that the firm was ever insolvent, a claim for loans to the bankrupt for that purpose cannot be rejected, on the ground that payments by the bankrupt to his copartner were preferential.-In re Keller. U. S. D. C.. 252 Fed. 942.

5. Summary Jurisdiction.-Where trustee in bankruptcy had possession of the leasehold formerly held by bankrupt, bankruptcy court had summary jurisdiction, on petition of trustee, to determine if title to lease was in bankrupt estate or in adverse claimants.-Lawhead v. Monroe Bldg. Co., U. S. C. C. A., 252 Fed. 758.

6.-Banks and Banking-Notice.-A bank is not charged with notice of facts known to its

president, dealing in his private capacity with third persons.-Alsabrooks v. Bank of Sparta, Ga., 97 S. E. 111.

7. Bills and Notes-Acceleration of Maturity. -A note, containing an acceleration of maturity clause and secured by mortgage, is non-negotiable.-Mathews v. Wilson, Cal., 175 Pac. 647.

8.Antecedent Signature.-An indorsement of a note is a warranty to every subsequent holder in good faith that the instrument and all antecedent signatures are genuine.-Odom Realty Co. v. Central Trust Co., Ga., 97 S. E. 116.

9.- -Notice of Defect.-Holder takes note with notice of infirmity or defect in title only where he has actual notice, or knowledge of such facts that his action in taking instrument amounts to bad faith. Lundean v. Hamilton. Iowa, 169 N. W. 208.

10. Brokers-Dual Agency. That a broker. contracting to secure a loan and perform other services for an agreed commission, advanced money on the loan secured by a mortgage taken in the name of another as mortgagee, intending to sell the mortgage, did not constitute him a dual agent, so as to forfeit his commission.-In re Williams, U. S. D. C., 252 Fed. 924.

11.

Burglary-Intent.-An indictment for burglary charging breaking and entry with intent to commit larceny must allege that the intent was to steal the property of some person.People v. Picard, Ill., 120 N. E. 546.

12. Carriers of Goods-Bill of Lading.-Where bill of lading stipulated the measure of damages in case of loss or damage to goods, the amount of damages should be governed thereby, although, in the absence of such a provision. the measure of damages would have been otherwise. -Cudahy Packing Co. v. Bixby, Mo., 205 S. W 865.

13. Insurer.-The universal rule is that the carrier is an insurer of the safe transportation of freight, unless the damage was the proximate result of and solely produced by an act of God or a public enemy, or because of the inherent nature or quality of the thing transported, the fault of the shipper. etc.-Louisville & N. R Co. v. Taylor, Ky., 205 S. W. 934.

14. Carriers of Passengers-Jerks and Jolts. -Since jerks and lurches of a train are unavoidable to some extent, for a carrier to be liable for injuries to a passenger caused thereby, they must be unusual, violent, and unnecessary.Millers Creek R. Co. v. Blevins, Ky., 205 S. W. 911.

15.- Public Service Commission.-Where Public Utilities Commission, in order to provide railway company with funds necessary for continued operation of its lines, made order authorizing a schedule of increased fares, such schedule will be permitted to remain in force, where appeals from order are taken until determination upon merits of the appeals.-Public Utilities Commission v. Rhode Island Co., R. I., 104 Atl.

Where

17. Chattel Mortgages — Invalidity. · goods purchased by corporation for its use are delivered to it, but paper title lodged for an instant in name of its agent, his chattel mortgage to vendor, who has knowledge of all the facts, is void as against creditors of corporation, as agent never had actual or potential interest in goods.-Cross v. Printing Corporation, N. J., 104 Atl. 727.

18. Commerce-Police Power.-The Interstate Commerce Law is paramount to the police power of the state.-Monumental Brewing Co. v. Whitlock, S. C., 97 S. E. 56.

Offense.-An in

19. Conspiracy-Complete dictment merely charging a conspiracy to do a thing, but not alleging the thing was done, does not show the completed offense within principle that indictment for conspiracy does not lie when it makes that showing.-Grant v. United States, U. S. C. C. A., 252 Fed. 692.

20. Overt Act.-A conspiracy is a crime of itself and is complete without the commission of the act for which the conspiracy was formed. -People v. Robertson, Ill., 120 N. E. 539.

21. Overt Act.-Overt acts, other than those charged in the indictment for conspiracy, tending to show defendant guilty, are admissible as against objection of irrelevancy.-McKnight v. United States, U. S. C. C. A., 252 Fed. 687.

22. Overt Act.-A mere conspiracy to defraud a county board is insufficient to constitute a crime, unless some overt act charged in the indictment is committed.-State v. Taylor, N. J., 104 Atl. 709.

23. Contracts-Excuse for Non-Performance. -Inconvenience or cost making compliance a hardship cannot excuse a party from performance of absolute unqualified undertaking to do a thing that is possible and lawful.-Corona Coal & Coke Co. v. Dickinson, Pa., 104 Atl. 741.

24. -Executory Contract.-If one of the parties to an executory contract avowedly and unequivocally repudiates it, the other party is not obliged to wait until the time fixed for performance, but may sue to establish his rights as soon as the contract is broken.-Dixon v. Anderson, U. S. C. C. A., 252 Fed. 694.

25.- -Mutuality.-Contract that, if defendant should purchase certain described lands, he would convey part thereof to plaintiff at a certain price, was a contract of purchase and sale upon a valuable consideration, and not void for lack of mutuality.-Zipperer v. Helmnly, Ga., 97 S. E. 74.

structive notice of such facts as its records, books, and papers disclose.-Hartley v. Ault Woodenware Co., W. Va., 97 S. E. 137.

29. Foreign Corporation.-Domestic creditors are not entitled to a preference over foreign creditors in case of dissolution or insol vency of a foreign corporation, in view of Corporation Act, §§ 58, 85, 86.-Clark v. Painted Post Lumber Co., N. J., 101 Atl. 728.

30. Purchase by Director.-A sale of property to a corporation by a director can be sustained only where there was good faith on the part of both the seller and of those who represented the corporation in the transaction.Drennen v. Southern States Fire Ins. Co., U. S. C. C. A., 252 Fed. 776.

32.

Criminal Law-Corpus Delicti-The corpus delicti may be proven by facts and circumstances, positive direct evidence not being indispensable.-Smith v. State, Ala., 79 So. 802.

33. Dying Declaration.-Admissibility of dying statements attributed to deceased is not affected by fact that they were elicited in reponse to questions put to him by bystander.Brinson v. State, Ga., 97 S. E. 102.

34. Former Jeopardy.-A party who has been tried and convicted by a judge not having jurisdiction of the offense cannot plead prior jeopardy, if subsequently indicted for the same offense in a court having jurisdiction thereof.Barrs v. State, Ga., 97 S. E. 86.

35. Deeds-Delivery.-Whether a deed is delivered depends on the grantor's intention.Struve v. Tatge, Ill., 120 N. E. 549.

36. Denial of Execution.-If a party who can read executes a deed put before him for execution, or if unable to read does not demand to have it read over and explained, he cannot deny execution, in the absence of fraud, having himself been negligent.-A. B. Hunter & Co. v. Sherron, N. C., 97 S. E. 5.

37. Fraud and Misrepresentation.-When there are fraud and misrepresentations in procuring execution of a deed, the grantor's want of due care is no defense to the grantee.-Taylor v. Edmunds, N. C., 97 S. E. 42.

38.

Reference to Plat.-If a plat is referred to in a deed as part of the description, it becomes a material and essential part of the conveyance with same effect as if copied into the deed.-McElwee v. Mahlman, Me., 104 Atl. 705.

39. Divorce Comparative Fault.-In fixing the amount of alimony, the relative or comparative fault of the parties is material.-Closz v. Closz, Iowa, 169 N. W. 183.

40. Contempt.-An attachment for contempt for failure to pay temporary alimony is in the nature of a civil proceeding and is remedial, intended merely to compel obedience to the order.-Beavers v. Beavers, Ga., 97 S. E. 65. 41.Condonation.-A husband completely condoned a known alleged adultery by expressly forgiving his wife, telling others they were reconciled, and going with her three miles to