Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the distinction. Unless attention is paid to the difference between registration and the right to be registered (in whatever terms we choose to express the discrimination) it will not be surprising to find in the law that "confusion, doubt, and difficulty" of which Mr. Cook complains.35

George Wharton Pepper.

* § 414.

AS MARKED BY DECISIONS SElected from THE ADVANCE REPORTS.

BAGGAGE.

What

The Supreme Court of Mississippi decides in Yazoo and M. V. R. Co. v. Georgia Home Ins. Co., 37 S. 500, that memoranda and papers in the possession of an Constitutes agent, but relating exclusively to the business of his principal, and carried by the agent solely for business purposes, are not baggage when put by the agent in his trunk, and, in the absence of a consent or custom of the railroad to accept such papers as baggage, no damages can be recovered, either for the loss of the papers or for delay in their shipment and delivery. Compare Staub v. Kendrick, 23 N. E. 79, 6 L. R. A. 619.

BILLS OF LADING.

Rights of

The Court of Appeals of Maryland, laying down the general rule that a bill of lading, though made non-negotiable Negotiability: by its terms, may, like any other non-negotiable instrument or chose in action, be transferred by Assignee assignment, the assignee taking subject to the equities between the original parties, holds in National Bank of Bristol v. Baltimore and O. R. Co., 59 Atl. 134, that an assignee of a non-negotiable bill of lading takes title to the goods represented by the bill subject only to the equities of those whose names appear upon or are in some way connected with the bill, and is not affected by equities existing in favor of strangers whose interests in no way appear upon it.

BUILDING CONTRACTS.

Power of

In Norcross v. Wyman, 72 N. E. 347, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts decides that under a building contract providing that the decision of the archiArchitects tects as to the specifications shall be final and binding, no notice was necessary before making a decision as to the meaning of the specifications, but the architects

BUILDING CONTRACTS (Continued).

were at liberty to decide on such legal principles as they deemed applicable and on such evidence as they chose to receive.

CARRIERS.

It seems settled by the majority of decisions that where goods shipped over several connecting lines are injured, and where it appears that they were delivered in Presumptions good condition to the first carrier, injury is presumed to have occurred on the last carrier's line. On the other hand, where the goods are entirely lost the burden is in the first carrier to explain such loss. An interesting set of facts is presented in Bullock v. Boston and H. Dispatch Co., 72 N. E. 256, where a case containing goods was delivered in good order to an initial carrier. When the connecting carrier delivered it to the owner it was found that some of the goods had been removed and were lost. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts holds that the loss is presumed to have occurred on the line of the connecting carrier. Compare Moore v. Railroad, 173 Mass. 335.

Railroad Ticket: Consideration

The Supreme Court of Kansas decides in Jevons v. Union Pac. R. Co., 78 Pac. 817, that where a railroad ticket correctly recites the date of its issuance, but is marked with a punch in a manner that, according to its printed statements, indicates that it had expired prior to that date, it cannot be said as a matter of law that it is for this reason void, and that its holder may not recover damages for being expelled from a train when he presents it for passage. It is also held that a round-trip railroad ticket, containing provisions that it shall be used only by the original holder whose signature it bears, but not in fact signed by anyone, which is sold with the express understanding that it shall be used by A in going to, and by B in returning from, the place of destination, is not void when presented by B upon such return passage after having been used by A for the first part of the journey. The case is an interesting authority upon a question upon which there are not many decisions. Compare Trice v. Chesapeake and O. Ry. Co., 40 W. Va. 271.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

The Supreme Court of Washington decides In re Aubry, 78 Pac. 900, that the trade of a horseshoer is not a subject Regulation of of regulation under the police power of the state Occupation as a business concerning and directly affecting the health, welfare, and comfort of its inhabitants, and hence that a statute providing for the examination and registration of horseshoers in certain cities is unconstitutional as an illegitimate exercise of such power. It is further held that the act also deprives citizens of their liberty and property without due process of law, and denies to them the equal protection of the laws. Compare the recent decision of Bessette v. People, 193 Ill. 334, 56 L. R. A. 558.

CONTRACTS.

Mistake:
Right to
Rescind

In Board of School Com'rs of City of Indianapolis v. Bender, 72 N. E. 154, the Appellate Court of Indiana holds that where a bidder for a public building, having very little time after notice of the letting of the contract, and before the filing of the bids, in making up his bid from his estimate book, in which he had estimated the different parts of the work separately, by mistake turned two leaves and omitted an estimate on one part of the work, in consequence of which his bid as submitted was several thousand dollars lower than he intended, or for which the work could be done, the acceptance of such bid did not create a contract for want of the meeting of the minds of the parties; and the mistake being an excusable one, a complaint setting up such fact, and that he promptly notified the board having charge of the work of the mistake, and the contract was let to the next higher bidder, states a cause of action in equity for the rescission of his bid and the recovery of a deposit made as a guarantee that he would enter into a contract if his bid was accepted. See in connection with this case Harran v. Foley, 62 Wis. 584.

The New York Supreme Court (Appellate Division, Fourth Department) decides in Johnson v. Fargo, 90 N. Y. 725, that a contract made between employer and Validity employee at the time of the employment of the latter, whereby he agreed to assume all risks of accident or injury which he would sustain in the course of his employ

CONTRACTS (Continued).

ment, whether occasioned by the negligence of the employer or any of its agents or employees, or otherwise, and further providing that in case he should at any time suffer injury he would at once execute and deliver to the employer a release of all claims, demands, and causes of action arising out of or connected with such injury, is contrary to public policy and void. One judge dissents. Compare Purdy v. Railroad Co., 125 N. Y. 209.

Trade

An interesting decision by the New York Supreme Court (Appellate Division, Second Department) appears in Jacobs Restraint of v. Cohen, 90 N. Y. Supp. 854, where it is held that a contract between an employer and a labor union, providing that the employer shall not employ any help other than those who are members of the union, and who conform to the rules of the union, and providing that the employer shall cease to employ employees who are not in good standing on being notified to that effect by the representatives of the union, and providing that the employer shall abide by the rules of the union, is an attempt to restrict the freedom of employment and is void as against public policy. Two judges dissent. Compare Curran v. Galen, 152 N. Y. 33.

DAMAGES.

The Supreme Court of Utah decides in Nichols v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 78 Pac. 866, that in an action for injuries Impairment to a passenger resulting from a collision, a loss of Memory of memory and an impairment of plaintiff's mental power are proper elements of damage. Compare with this decision the very recent holding of the Supreme Court of Oregon in Maynard v. Oregon R. and Nav. Co., 78 Pac. 983, that mental distress or anguish resulting from the realization of physical inability, because of the injury, to properly care for those dependent on plaintiff for support and education is not an element of consequential damages to be recovered in an action for personal injuries.

« AnteriorContinuar »