Lee v. Guardian L. Ins. Co., 495, 566 Lester v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 641 Long et al v. Converse et al., 830 Louisville, etc. Canal Co., v. Murphy, 598 Lucas v. Harper, 34 Lucas v. Nichols, 324 Lucas v. Case, 598 Lyon v. Pollard, 83 Lyle v. Ellwood, 525 Mahoney v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 574 Manville v. W. U. Tel. Co., 616 Marietta, etc. R. Co., v. Stephenson, 353 Marsh v. Fairbury, etc., R. Co., 662 Martin v. Ætna L. Ins. Co., 696 Mavro v. The Queen Mar. Ins. Co., 530 McTerren v. Mont Alto R. Co., 791 Meckler v. First Nat. Bank of Hagerstown, 471 Merchants' M. Ins. Co. v. Baring, 14 Michigan Cen. R. Co. v. Lantz et al., 737 Miss. River Tel. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 178 Miss. Valley L. Ins. Co. v. Neyland, 598 Mitchell v. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., 620, 368 Mock, et al. v. Detroit Build. Assoc., 72 "MOLLIE MOHLER" v. HOME INS. Co., 50 Monitor M. F. Ins. Co. v. Buffum, 402 Munford, J. E., ex parte, 45 Munnell v. Peters, 68 Muller v. Fern, 147 Murdock v. Mayor, etc., of Memphis, 135, 151 Mutual B. L. Ins. Co. v. Atwood's Adm., 500 Nelson v. Iowa, etc., R. Co., 729, 739 Neville v. Cork, etc., R. Co., 366 New Orleans Gas Co. v. Crescent City Gas Co, 149 New York Life Ins. Co. v. La Boiteaux, 806 Norwich, Steamship, In re, 241 North western P. Co. v. Clough, 83 Ochiltree v. Iowa R. Const. Co., 178 Ohde v. North M. L. Ins. Co., 567 Passmore v. W. U. Tel. Co., 631 Patterson v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 639 PATTERSON V. HEMPFIELD R. Co., 49 Payne et al. v. Lloyd et al., 791 Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 807 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Weber, 531 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Krick, 483 People, the, v. Hunckeler, 528 People, the, v. Com. Council of Detroit, 727 People, the, v. Gov'r of Michigan, 727 Pierce v. Chicago, etc., R Co., 377, 389 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Nuzum, 829 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. S. W. Penn. R. Co., 67 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Pillow, 79 Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v. Stinger, 555 Phillips v. Dunkirk, etc., R. Co., 669 Porter v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 383 Porter v. So. Express Co., 774 Rubber Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 161 Ruchman v. Lightner's Exec., 500 Ryan v. World Mut. Ins. Co., 131 Ryder v. Meyer, 324 Saint v. Pilley, 529 Salkey and Gerson, in re, 110, 224 Salmon v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 662 SARGENT V. BOSTON & L. R. Co., 403, 714 San Francisco, etc., R. Co., v. Bee, 528 San Francisco v. Spring V. Water W., 528 Sausser's case, 529 Sawyer et al., ex parte, 482 Scaife v. Farrant, 383 (Ex. Ch.) 605 Schrader v. Burr. 14 Scott v. Kelly, 160 Scott v. Miller, 661 Scudder v. Union Nat. Bank, 827 Sea Gull" v. "Sarah Watson," 228 Seaman v. O'Hara, 727 Seckel v. Scott, 451 Secombe v. Railway Co., 322 Selma, etc., R. Co. v. Lacey, 305 Seymour v. Bailey, 661 Shanks v. Albert, 483 Shedd v. Hawthorne, 96 Sherrard v. Lafayette Co., 347 Shirts v. Overjohn, 423 Schulman et al. v. Loeb & Brother, 42 Shurtleff v.. Thompson, 725 Sierra's Case, 529 Singer v. Sloan, 141, 133, 218 Sinking Springs etc., Ins. Co. v. Hoff's Exrs., 791 Sinus v. Bice, 689 Skouton, et al., v. Wood, 61 SLAUGHTER v. LYNCHBURG, 277 Sloan v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 781 Slott v, Rutherford, 562 SMITH V. ATTECK, 34 Smith v. Glenn's Falls Ins. Co., 710 Smith v. House, 35 Smith v. Nichols, 322 Smith, et al., v. Smith, et al., 720 Smith's Case, 528 Somerset Co. Ins. Co. v. May's Exrs., 791 Sonnerborn v. Mina, 164 Southern Ex. Co. v. Caldwell, 481 Southern Ex. Co. v. Craft, 112 South Carolina v. Railroad Corporations, 774 Stevens v. Gage, 589 Steward v. Teutonia, 482 STICKNEY, ASSIGNEE, v. WILT, 39 St. Louis County Court v. Griswold, et al., 56 Stout v. Merrill, 146 Stram v. Gourden, III Strehl v. D'Evers, 303 Strohu v. Hartford F. Ins. Co., 710 SULLIVAN V. N. PACIFIC R. Co., 12, 165 Sullivan's Admr. v. Louisville B. Co., 598 Swain v. Saltmarsh, 388 Tappan's appeal, 694 Templeton v. Kraner, 259 Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 482 Texas Bank & Ins. Co., v. Texas, 691 Titus v. U. S., 289 Titusville Novelty W. v. Graham & Co., 67 Towell v. Pence, 483 Underwood v. People, 315 Underwriter's agency v. Seabrook, 305 Union Central L. Ins. Co. v. Poettker et al, 792 Union Hall Assoc. v. Morrison, 15, 98 Southern & Atlantic Tel. Co. v. New Orleans, etc., Union Pacific R. Co. v. McShane et al, 104 R. Co., 88 South Boston Iron Co. v. Brown, 574 SPADES V. SPADES, 713 Spalding v. Abbott, 695 SPEED V. MACAULEY, 698 Spear v. Hill, 388 Speer v. Bishop, 306, 355 Speyer v. "Mary Belle Roberts," 240 Sprattey v. Mut. Ben. Ins. Co., 243 Spratt v. Pierson, 774 Stanton v. Haverhill Bridge Co., 599 United Land Co. v. Great East, R. Co., 195 Vermyle et al. v. Adams Ex. Co., 381 Wadham v. Gay, 547 Walker v. Day, et al., 179 WALKER V. MISS. VALLEY, ETC., R. Co., 481 Warner v. Cronkhite, 773 Warren v. Wisconsin Val. R. Co., 542 Warning v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 67 Waterman v. People, 599 Watson v. Citizens Sav. Bank of S. C., 126 Watson v. Bondurant, 371 Weaver v. Ohio, 260 Weave v. Linnell, 727 Webb, In re., 775 Weber v. Anderson, 227 Weed Sewing Machine Co. v. Wicks, 475 Weimar v. Bunbury, 99 WEISE V. JUNKER, 197 Welch v. Ware, 346 Wells v. Mayor, 529 Wells' Admr. v. Robb, 598 Wemys v. Hopkins, 509 West Chester, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson, 178 West End, etc., R. Co. v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 30 UNITED STATES v. STEAMBOAT MONTICELLO, 50 Winter's appeal, 178 U. S. v. Kansas Pacific R. Co., 801 U. S. v. George et al, 77 U. S. v. Villalonga, 83 U. S. v. State Nat. Bank of Minneapolis, 107 U. S. v. Southmayd, 86 U. S. v. Maxwell, 314 U. S. v. Shrewsbury, 322 U. S. v. Distillery No. 28, 749 U. S. v. Williamson, 371 State Board of Agriculture v. Citizens Street R., U. S. v. 483 Stanberry, et al., v. Dickerson, 147 St. Clair Co. v. Wiggin's Ferry Co., 178 Stearns v. Mason, 500 Ste. Marie's Case, 529 Stephens v. Green Co. Iron W., . Stephens v. Black, 67 Stevens v. Bowen, 112 44 Rinsdorf, 679. U. S. v. Union Pacific R. Co., 831 U. S. v. Cheeseman, 791 U. S. v. ex rel McKee v. Vernon Co., 771 U. S. etc., Felting Co. v. Haven, 758 UNIVERSAL NON-TARIFF INS. Co., in re, 318 Upchurch v. Anderson, 467 Upton v. Haines, 695 Upton v. Tribilcock, 784 SEYMOUR_D. THOMPSON, } Editor. ST. LOUIS, FRIDAY, JANUARY 1, 1875. Most of our readers will be apprised, by a circular from the Hon. JOHN F. DILLON, { Contributing Editor. LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS IN INSOLVENT CORPORATIONS. -We publish in this number the full text of a very recent States, delivered by the chief justice upon this subject. In and satisfactory opinion of the Supreme Court of the United view of the large number of corporations which have failed in the last two years, this opinion is one of no inconsiderable interest. It will be seen that the supreme court hold, that a provision for proportionate liability on the part of publishers, of the reasons which have induced the changes with which we begin the present year. Judge Dillon retires from the active management of the JOURNAL at his own request. We are authorized in saying that this will not diminish his interest in the JOURNAL, nor will it materially lessen the amount of his contributions. He will not, how-members for the debts of the corporation, is equivalent to a ever, as heretofore, feel under the necessity of contributing at stated times, but will be free to confine his labors on the JOURNAL to such intervals of leisure as he may have between the terms of his various courts. Nor will he in any sense be chargeable with responsibility for opinions which may be expressed editorially in these columns. stockholders, and for the benefit of all the creditors, and that provision that the remedy must be in equity against all the at common law there is no individual liability on the part of stockholders for corporate debts, and that such a personal liability is purely statutory. EXCHANGE OF BRIEFS.-During the past year we received from friends and subscribers a large number of valuable briefs, many of them on novel and important questions. How to utilize these puzzled us somewhat, particularly as we could It now ocnot find time to read and digest their contents. curs to us that we may accomplish this by making the JOURNAL a sort of bureau for the exchange of briefs. For instance, suppose a subscriber in California sends us a printed argument upon some novel question. Suppose another subscriber is laboring on the same, or on a similar question; it would be of great advantage to the latter to know that he could procure material assistance from his professional brother in California. To enable our readers to communicate with each other, Without making any definite promises, we have it in mind to say that the four pages of additional space which we shall carry during the present year, will be chiefly devoted to the publishing of novel decisions of the state courts, and decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States which are of general interest. We also have in mind the introduction of one or two new features of interest, but think it best not to make any promises in connection with them. The general satisfaction of our readers with our first volume, has induced us to continue the general plan of the JOURNAL without substan- and to profit by each other's labors in such cases, we propose tial change. A little experience has sufficed to teach us that examining any briefs with which we may be favored, so far it is unwise to make definite pledges as to our future course. as will enable us to publish in the JOURNAL a statement of the Instead of doing this, we shall endeavor to see that the meas-points involved in the controversy, and the name and address ure of each day's duty is fulfilled, and shall trust our readers of the counsel from whom a copy of the brief can be pro cured. Any reader who may desire to examine it will thus be enabled to procure it by addressing a request to its author. to judge of what we may do in the future by the efforts which we have been able to put forth in the past. We desire to tender our earnest thanks to those judges and members of the profession who have favored us with opinions and contributions, and we solicit a continuation of their favors during the coming year. We need not remind them that our space will still be too limited to publish in full all opinions which we may receive; but we hope to be able either to publish or notice all that are of general interest. We shall be obliged to any of our readers for timely information of any decisions which they may consider of sufficient importance ind general interest for publication. MANDAMUS AGAINST EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF STATE GOVERNMENT.-Contrary to our usual custom, we yield a large ortion of our space in this issue to the opinion of the maority of the Supreme Court of Texes, in the case of Keuchv. Wright, which we noticed at length in our issue for Jecember 18. (1 CENT. L. J. 627). We shall publish the parate opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Roberts next week. ADMIRALTY CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT.-If Mr. Chief Justice Waite keeps on as he has begun this term, he will en- dispute as to the law. Two courts have already found against affirmed." The judgment of the circuit court is found against the appellants. We are entirely satisfied with information of the same nature, which enables litigants to watch the progress of their causes. Heretofore, on the first day of a term, the attorneys' clients all the findings. and witnesses, promiscuously attended court, in consequence of which the court rooms were crowded to such a degree that no business could be transacted; and so for several days thereafter. Now, none need nor will attend except those whose causes are set down for trial. But the great feature of the bill, and that which should specially command it to the public, is the provision by which all legal notices or advertisements required by law to be pub But what shall we say of the fact that the precious time of the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States must be taken up with the consideration of questions like these, which a jury of old sea captains would be more competent to determine? Under the ruling in Morgan v. Thornhill, 11 Wall. 65, we now have substantially nine final courts of bankruptcy, the number of questions and of causes which can be taken above the circuit judges being extremely limited, compared with the great volume of bankruptcy litigation. If "a uniform system of bankruptcy" can be successfully administered in nine final courts, it should really seem that questions in admiralty which do not involve important and unsettled questions of law, might stop in the circuit courts. The Publication of Legal Notices. An act passed by the Legislature of New York last winter, and which Governor Dix has just approved, provides as follows: The presiding Justice of the Supreme Court of the First Judicial District, the Chief Judge of the Common Pleas Court in and for the City and County of New York, the Chief Judge of the Superior Court of the City of New York, and the Chief Justice of the Marine Court of the City of New York, or a majority of them, shall designate a daily law journal, published in said city, in which shall be published all calendars of the courts of record held in and for said city and county, which calendars shall contain the numbers and titles of the causes and names of the attorneys appearing therein, with such particulars and notices in respect to such calendars, or the causes thereon, as may be specified by the clerks of said courts respectively, under the order of said courts, together with every notice or advertisement in legal proceedings, or which may be required by law to be published in one or more papers in said in only one paper, then such publication shall be made in said paper; but if such notice or advertisement is required to be published in more than one paper, then one of such requisite papers shall be the paper so designated. Provided, that no greater sum shall be paid per folio than that now allowed by law. city or county. If such notice or advertisement is required to be published lished in one or more papers are required to be published in the official organ as one of such papers. As a matter to be proven, it is proper that some one paper should be designated for such purpose. For the object of reference, such notice or advertisement will always be found in the official journal; and in perfecting the titles to properties sold under foreclosures or other processes this singling out a certain fixed and determinate publication will be invaluable. The Supreme Court of the United States. should never be required to perform the police or atigue The French writers on the art of war, say that the cavalry duty of an army when it can be avoided; but that the strength and spirit of this arm of the service ought to be husbanded and nourished, not only in time of peace, but also during the active movements of the campaign, to the end that it may be freely lavished at the decisive moment on the field of battle. It would perhaps be well if Congress would apply this principle to the work of the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States. Their strength should not be wasted by the consideration of a mass of miscellaneous litigation with which their docket is crowded, which might equally well be determined in other tribunals, but should be carefully husbanded, in order that they should be able to give their best efforts to the determination of the great questions of constitutional and public law which are constantly coming before them. To give them some relief, and to render it possible for them to get through with the work which is constantly accumulating and increasing before them, several measures have been suggested. Of these the more important are the following: 1. To increase still further the number of the judges. To this proposition there are serious, if not insuperable, objections. Some who have attentively studied this subject, be We referred to this particular measure, and expressed our views on the subject at some length in a previous number (Ilieve that a court composed of more than five judges, is too CENT. L. J. 391). The appropriateness-nay, even the necessity-in large cities of selecting some one law journal as the medium in which all legal advertisements shall be published, is too obvious to dwell upon. It must have been this consideration which inclined Governor Dix, after a long deliberation, to approve the above act, although it was opposed by the leading daily papers, and by the Council of Political Reform, of New York City, and although it involves what, on a superficial examination, may seem to savor of monopoly. We need not add that the Daily Register is the journal which the judges have designated as the official journal of legal advertising under this act. This journal has, by its judicious attention to local interests, by its habit of reporting the decisions of the courts of New York City immediately after their rendition, by the freshness and ability of its editorials, and by the judicious quality of its selections from other journals, justly deserved this favor, and its managers and editor deserve our congratulations. In entering upon its new career, the Register makes the following observations: This daily publication is hereafter to be official, and therefore a legal notice tried. The benefit to the legal profession is great, because of the daily information conveyed by such official organ; and to the general public it conveys to parties litigant of the time when, and the place where, their causes will be unwieldy for a good working court. Every one who has had experience with the workings of deliberative bodies, understands how much more readily a difficult and complicated whole house. In fact we believe that "committee of the measure can be developed in a small committee than by the whole" is seldom resorted to, except for the purposes of desultory debate, and as a sort of preparation for the final vote. The plan of increasing the number of judges, then, although it seems the measure most likely to be adopted, may be dismissed as the one least practicable. 2. To abolish appeals and writs of error from the supreme courts of the territories, and from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Concerning the expediency of this measure, there would seem to be no room for hesitation. There would seem to be no valid reason whatever why these courts, composed as they are of benches of judges selected by the President and Senate from the whole Union, cannot exercise final jurisdiction over all matters wherein the jurisdiction of the highest state tribunals is final, and why the supervisory power of the Supreme Court of the United States should not be limited as to them in the same manner as it is limited with reference to the state courts. |