Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Fishburn v. City of Chicago (Ill.) Municipal Corpora-
tions-Paving Streets-Contracts-Restrictions on
Competition, ann. case, 261.

Frazier v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. (Ga.) Parent
and Child-Action for Services-Death-Limitation
of Actions, ann. case, 133.

Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Hicks (Tenn.) Sale-Warranty-
Breach-Notice, R. D. 22.

Gates v. City of Toledo (Ohio) Damages-Breach of
Contract-Counsel Fees - Municipal Corporation-
Assessment, R. D. 108.

Gates v. Tippecanoe Stone Co. (Ohio) Corporations-
Subscription to Stock - Payment-Fraud of Sub-
scribers, R. D. 43.

Gelsthorpe v. Furnell (Mont.) Constitutionality of
Montana Inheritance Tax Law, Ed. 231.

[ocr errors][merged small]

-

- Acceptance-Re-

Grumbach v. Hirsch (Tex.) Draft
scission, R. D. 281.
Haggerty v. St. Louis Ice Manuf. & Storage Co. (Mo.)
Game Laws-Contract for Storage During Closed
Season-Validity, R. D. 443.

Handley v. Jackson (Oreg.) Appearance by Attorney-
Presumption of Authority, R. D. 43.

Hang v. Riley (Ga.) Bills and Notes-Bona Fide Holder
-Maturity-Days of Grace, R. D. 358.

Hanson v. Hartse (Minn.) Sale-Implied Warranty, R.
D. 63.

Harrison v. Brophy (Kan.) Will-Bequest for Celebra-
tion of Masses-Superstitious Uses, R. D. 300.
Higgins v. Western Union Tel. Co. (N. Y.) Master and
Servant-Servant of One Master as the Servant of
Another, R. D. 491.

Hill v. Campell Commission Co. (Neb.) Conversion of
Mortgaged Chattels Liabilities - Pleading, ann.
case, 323.

-

Holden v. Hardy (U. S. S. C.) Constitutionality of the
Utah Eight Hour Law, Ed. 355.

Hong Wah, In re (U. S. D. C., Cal.) Constitutional Law
-Nuisance-Laundries, R. D. 22.

House v. Kountze (Tex.) Bank-Check against Deposit
-Assignment, R. D. 168.

Houston v. State (Wis.) Animals-Destruction of Dis-
eased Animals, R. D. 319.

Illinois Central R. Co. v. O'Keefe (Ill.) Carriers of Pas-
sengers-Who are Passengers, R. D. 63.

Illinois Steel Co. v. Mann (Ill.) Continuance of Serv-
ants in Service after Promise of the Master to Re-
move Defects, Ed. 79.

Irwin v. Reeves Pulley Co. (Ind.) Liability of Bank in
the Collection of Paper for the Default of its Cor
respondent Bank, Ed. 127.

John V. Farwell Co. v. Sweetzer (Colo.) Corporations
-Preferring Creditors-Validity, ann. case, 219.
Justice v. Lairy (Ind.) Dissolution of Law Partnership
by Election of Member as a Judge, Ed. 383.
Kies v. Young (Ark.) Married Women-Antenuptial
Debts, ann. case, 47.

Kingman v. Watson (Wis.) Sale-Warranty-Waiver-
Acceptance, R. D. 170.

Knaver v. City of Louisville (Ky.) Municipal Corpora-
tion-Ordinance-Removal of Dead Animals, R. D.

508.

Lanter v. Jarris-Conklin Mortgage Trust Co. (U. S. C.
C. App., Sixth Cir.) Foreign Corporations-Con-
tracts-Negotiable Paper, R. D. 490.

Lardner v. Williams (Wis.) Wills - Construction-
Power to Mortgage Estate-Reformation of Mort-
gage, ann. case, 306.

Lees v. Colgan (Cal.) Reward-Rights of Police Officer,
ann. case, 429.

Lewis v. Clay (English) Liability upon Negotiable In.
strument where Signature is Obtained by Trickery,
Ed. 165.

Little Rock & F. S. Ry. Co. v. Oppenheimer (Ark.)
Discrimination by Railroad Company in the Fur
nishing of Transporation Facilities, Ed. 297.
Little Rock Traction & Electric Co. v. Walker (Ark.)
Malicious Prosecution
- Liability of Master for

-

Torts of Servant, R. D. 384.
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Whitlow's Admr. (Ky.) Con-
flict of Laws-Contributory Negligence, R. D. 129.
Lowndes v. Cooch (Md.) Disposition, Succession to
and Distribution of Personal Property Governed by
the Law of the Country of the Owner's Domicile,
Ed. 507.

McCracken v. Smathers (N. Car.) Malpractice - Dentist
-Negligence-Damages, ann. case, 367.

McDonald v. Insurance Co. (N. H.) Life Insurance-
Premium Policy-Cancelled for Fraud-Assumpsit,
R. D. 64.

McFarlane v. Town of Sullivan (Wis) Negligence-
Defective Highway - Accident-Proximate Cause,
R. D. 404.

McGowan v. City of Boston (Mass.) Municipal Corpo
ration-Defective Sidewalk-Ice, R. D. 384.

McLarth v. Hunt (N. Y.) Will-Life Tenant and Re-
mainder-man-Right to Stock Dividends, R. D. 23.
Magee v. Overshiner (Ind.) Municipal Corporation-
Streets Telephone System Construction, R. D.

462.

-

-

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Morrow v. Southern Express Co. (Ga.) Contract
Consideration-Mutual Promises, R. D. 337.
Newell v. Chipman (Mass.) Evidence-Agency-Decla.
rations of Agent, R. D. 318.

Nical v. Fitch (Mich.) Contracts

Performance-De-

struction of Subject-matter, ann. case, 28.
Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Houchin's Admr. (Va.) Master
and Servant-Fellow-servant-Who Are, R. D. 235.
North Chicago St. Ry. Co. v. Ackley (Ill.) Assignment
of Cause of Action for Injuries, Ed. 191, ann. case,
199.

Oleson v. Wilson (Mont.) How far Courts of a State
which Enacts a Statute of Another State are Bound
by the Construction Placed upon the Statute by the
Courts of the Latter State, Ed. 461.

Pearce v. Will (Ind.) Following Trust Funds-Banks-
Checks-Option Deals, R. D. 195.

Pedigo v. Commonwealth (Ky.) Admissibility of Testi-
mony of Trailing by Dog, Ed. 297.
People v. Bryant (Cal.) Criminal Law
Money Under False Pretenses, ann. case, 240.

Obtaining

Sheridan Gas, Oil & Coal Co. v. Pearson (Ind.) Trespass

to Realty-Tenants by Entireties, R. D. 252.

Smyth v. Ames (U. S. S. C.) Validity of the Nebraska

Maximum Freight Rate Act, 489.

Snyder v. Wheeling Electrical Co. (W. Va.) Negligence

-Pleading-Presumption of Negligence, R. D. 254.

Spoey v. Evans (Ind.) Sale of Growing Trees-License

-Revocation, R. D. 3.

Springer Land Assn. v. Ford (U. S. S. C.) Mechanic's

Lien-Construction of Statutes-Property Covered

by Lien, R. D. 80.

State v. Bates (Ind.) Effect of the Presence of a Ste-

nographer in the Grand Jury Room While the

Grand Jury are Considering Indictments, Ed. 1.

State v. Repp (Iowa) Criminal Law -Larceny-Wild

Bees-Property Rights, R. D. 213.

State v. Shive (Kan.) Criminal Law-Evidence of Alibi,

ann. case, 114.

State v. Switzler (Mo.) Validity of the Missouri and

Illinois Inheritance Tax Law, Ed. 403.

State v. Wade, Sheriff (Md.) Sheriff-Liability of Sure-

ites-Lynching of Prisoner, R. D. 491.

State v. Williams (Wash.) Criminal Law - Constitu-

tional Guaranties-Defendant Manacled in Court,

R. D. 23.

State v. Wise (Oreg.) Offer of Marriage by Defendant

as an Answer to Prosecution for Seduction, Ed. 145.

State Board v. Holliday (Ind.) Taxation of Life Insur

ance Policies, Ed. 297.

Steenerson v. The Great Northern R. R. Co. (Mich.)

Railroad Company-Fixing Railroad Rates, R. D. 3.

Stuart v. Hayden, Receiver (U. S. S. C.) National Bank

Shares-Liability of Holder as Transferrer-Insolv

ency, R. D. 128.

Stuckey v. Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. (Ga.) Malicious

Prosecution-Advice of Attorney-Good Faith, ann.

case, 495.

Sullivan v. Waterman (R. I.) Nuisance-Private Nul-

sance-Using Lodging House Rooms for Assigna.
tion, R. D. 194.

Swinburn v. Mills (Wash.) Mortgage-Foreclosure-
Stay Law-Retroactive Operation, R. D. 42.
Thomas Mfg. Co. v. Piather (Ark.) Contract-Benefi.
cial Interest of Third Party, R. D. 254.
Torrey v. McClellan (Tex.) Innkeepers-Lien on Drum-
mers' Samples, R. D. 146.

Union Nat. Bank v. Milburn & Stoddard Co. (N. Dak
Mortgage for Future Advances-Validity-Priority
of Liens-Marshalling Securities-Subrogation, R.
D. 194.

United States v. Boyer (U. S. D. C., Mo.) Validity of
Federal Meat Inspection Laws, Ed. 383.
United States v. Bram (U. S. S. C.) Admissibility in a
Criminal Case of Alleged Confession which is in
Substance a Denial, Ed. 107.

United States v. Coal Dealers' Association of California
(U. S. C. C., Cal.) Combinations-In Restraint of
Trade-Anti Trust Law-Interstate Commerce, R.
D. 356.

United States v. Fay (U. S. D. C., Mo.) Prosecution for
Using United States Mails for the Purpose of De-
frauding, Ed. 251.

United States v. Hopkins (U. S. C. C., Kan.) Monopo
lies and Restraint of Trade-Reasonableness of Re
straint-Live Stock Exchange, R. D. 81.

Wadhams & Co. v. Balfour (Oreg.) Sale-Passing Title

-Delivery of Bill of Lading, R. D. 232.

Warner v. Baltimore & O. R. R. Co. (U. S. S. C.) Car-
riers of Passengers - Injury - Contributory Negli.
gence, R. D. 42.

Weaver v. Carter (Ga.) Validity of Verdict Rendered

on Sunday, Ed. 251.

Welch v. Hubschmitt Building & Woodworking Co.

(N. J.) Building Contract- Construction Archi-

tect's Certificate-Performance-Question for Jury

-Surety of Contractor-Liability-Discharge, ann.

case, 68.

Welty v. Jacobs (Ill.) Injunction-Breach of Contract

-Specific Performance, R. D. 318, 405.

Wheelock v. Presbyterian Church (Cal.) Religious So-
cieties-Division of Congregation-Trusts-Powers
of Presbytery, ann. case, 175.

Whitcomb v. Bacon (Mass.) Brokers-Right to Com
missions, ann. case, 392.

Wiedman v. Keller (Ill.) Sale of Meats-Warranty of
Wholesomeness, R. D. 193.

Williams v. State (Ga.) Admissibility of Evidence Il-
legally Obtained, Ed. 211.

Willis v. Providence Telegram Pub. Co. (R. I.) Negli.

gence-Contributory Negligence-Proximate Cause,

[blocks in formation]

Central Law Journal.

ST. LOUIS, MO., JANUARY 1, 1898.

in an early Maine case which seems to have escaped the notice of the Maine court in its later decision. State v. Clough, 49 Me. 573. In State v. Miller (Iowa), 64 N. W. Rep. 288, it was complained that the clerk of the grand jury, who (as required by the statute of Iowa) was not a member of the grand jury, asked the witnesses certain questions, at the request of the foreman,-the clerk being a practicing attorney, and the court said: "The only serious question presented in regard to him was whether he so far violated the law, in participating in the examination of witnesses, as to give cause for setting aside the indictment. The statute under which he acted provided that he should 'take no part in the proceedings aside from his clerical duties,' and that he should 'strictly abstain from expressing any opinion upon any question before the grand jury, either to the jury, or to any member thereof.' Code, § 4275, as amended. It appears that the clerk in this case asked the witnesses some questions, but they were asked at the request of the foreman, and were followed by questions asked by different members of the grand jury. Such a practice is not to be commended, but the district court necessarily found that what was done in this case was not prejudicial to the defendant, and we think the conclusion is fully justified by the record." See, also, on this point, Com. v. Bradney, 126 Pa. St. 205; State v. Justus, 11 Oreg. 178; State v. Baker, 33 W. Va. 319, where it is substantially held that an indictment will not be set aside on the ground of informalities or irregularities when it is not shown that the defendant has been prejudiced in his substantial right. The liberal view of the Indiana court, on the main question, seems to be upheld by the weight of authority.

In a recent issue we called attention to the case of State v. Bowman, 38 Atl. Rep. 331, wherein the Supreme Court of Maine held that the presence of a stenographer before a grand jury, by express order of the court, while witnesses are being examined, who takes stenographic notes of the testimony, although he retires before the jury commence their deliberations, invalidates an indictment found under such circumstances. The Supreme Court of Indiana in the more recent case of State v. Bates, 48 N. E. Rep. 2, takes a contrary view of the matter, the holding being that the mere fact that a stenographer employed by the prosecuting attorney was present in the grand jury room, and took down in shorthand the evidence on which the indictment was based, for the use of the prosecution, is not ground for quashing the indictment, unless it appears that the accused was prejudiced thereby. The court proceeds upon the ground that, in the absence of statute authorizing or prohibiting one not a member of the grand jury, being present and taking stenographic notes, it is not in violation of law and a person so attending is, in effect, the assistant of the prosecuting attorney. It was with some such idea that the federal courts have held that the attendance of a stenographer before the grand jury for the purpose of taking the evidence for the use of the district attorney in the discharge of his official duties was not irregular or illegal. U. S. v. Simmons, 46 Fed. Rep. 65. And the courts of many of the States have held that the presence of a stranger in the grand jury room during the investigation of a criminal charge is not sufficient to abate an indictment, unless it appears that the person indicted was thereby injured in his substantial rights. Shattuck v. State, 11 Ind. 473; Courtney v. State, 5 Ind. App. 356, 32 N. E. Rep. 335; State v. Kimball, 29 Iowa, 267; Bennett v. State, 62 Ark. 516, 535, 36 S. W. Rep. 947. In the State of Illinois this question was considered at an early date, and the view above stated was adopted. Granger v. Warrington, 3 Gilm. 299. That doctrine was also laid down depriving the employee of the equal protec

A recent Pennsylvania legislature undertook something new in the line of taxation. They passed an act imposing upon every employer of foreign-born unnaturalized male persons over twenty-one years of age a tax of three cents a day for each day that each of such persons may be employed and author

izing the deduction of that sum from the

wages of such employees. The United States Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania has very properly held it unconstitutional, as

son within the jurisdiction of a State exemption from any burdens or charges other than such as are equally laid upon all others under like circumstances. The Railroad Tax Cases, 13 Fed. Rep. 722, 733."

NOTES OF RECENT DECISIONS.

[ocr errors]

INTERSTATE COм-
ORIGINAL PACK-

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
MERCE-STATE STATUTES
AGES.-The United States Circuit Court for
Tennessee in the recent case of Sawrie v.
State of Tennessee, applied the law of what
is known as "original packages" to the im-

tion of the laws in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States. The general purpose and scope of this constitutional provision was stated by Mr. Justice Field in the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, who said that it was intended "not only that there should be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, or arbitrary spoliation of property, but that equal protection and security should be given to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their personal and civil rights; that all persons should be equally entitled to pursue their happiness, and acquire and enjoy property; that they should have like access to the courts of the country for the protection of their per-portation of cigarettes. It was held that a sons and property, the prevention and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts; that no impediment should be interposed to the pursuits of any one, except as applied to the same pursuits by others under like circumstances; that no greater burden should be laid upon one than are laid upon others in the same calling and condition, and that in the administration of criminal justice no different or higher punishment should be imposed upon one than such as is prescribed to all for like offenses." In a later case it was shown that, under the legislation of congress, intended to enforce the constitutional provision, the latter embraces within its protection not citizens merely but all "persons" within the jurisdiction of the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356. The plaintiff in the Pennsylvania case, it appears, was a British subject. The court said that "the tax is of an unusual character, and is directed against and confined to a particular class of persons. Evidently the act is intended to hinder the employment of foreign-born unnaturalized male persons over twenty-one years of age. The act is hostile to and discriminates against such persons. It interposes to the pursuit by them of their lawful avocations obstacles to which others, under like circumstances, are not subjected. It imposes upon these persons burdens which are not laid upon others in the same calling and condition. The tax is an arbitrary deduction from the daily wages of a particular class of persons. Now, the equal protection of the laws declared by the fourteenth amendment to the constitution secures to each per

Tennessee statute entirely prohibiting the importation or sale of cigarettes is invalid, as an interference with interstate commerce, in so far as it applies to cigarettes brought into the State, from other States or foreign countries, and sold in the original packages of importation. The court said that "if the State enactment regulating traffic in a particular article be in fact a quarantine or an inspection statute, and, as such, is aimed at something uncommercial, by reason of its state or condition, such as articles infected, or disguised so as to be a cheat calculated to lead a purchaser into buying something he did not intend to buy, as in Plumey v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 154, the enactment may be upheld as an exercise of the police power of the States, and not a regulation of commerce. But this Tennessee statute, in so far as it prevents importation and sales in the original package by the importer, is not a quarantine or inspection statute, and is not based upon the state or condition of the cigarette. Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S. 299, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1086, involved a statute of the State of Georgia prohibiting any operation of railroad trains on the Sabbath day. It was upheld as an exercise of the police power of the State, and not a regulation of interstate commerce. The opinion contains no language in any way modifying the doctrine of Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, or that of the cases following and reasserting the doctrine of that case. There is no possible conflict between Hennington v. Georgia and Leisy v. Hardin. It is but another of the class of cases like those

« EelmineJätka »