Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

3.-Official bond; when sureties not liable as to duties
imposed by law passed subsequent to execution.
White v. East Saginaw (Mich. S. C.)....
4.- Official bond; tax collector; how far surety liable.
Ward v. Stahl (N. Y. App.)
5.- Official bond; bond signed with unfilled blanks
estoppel; office vacant by default in filing bond;
when provision as to vacant directory. City of
Chicago v. Gage (Ill. S. C.)....

6. What notice surety must give to creditor to compel
legal action against debtor. Hunt v. Purdy (N. Y.
App)...
7.-Undertaking for employee of corporation; construe-
tion of instrument; change of employment. Collier
v. Southern Ex. Co. (Va. S. C.)

See Attorney.

TAXATION. Of corporation must be at principal
office as set forth in its certificate of incorporation;
review of erroneous, need not be by certiorari.
Union Steamboat Co. v. Buffalo (N. Y. S. C.)
2.- Collector not liable for enforcement of tax; war-
rant valid on its face. Moss v. Cummins (Mich.
S. C.)

3.- Exemption of cemeteries from; assessment for local
improvement. Olive Cemetery Co. v. Philadelphia
(Penn. S. C.)

198

94

356

475

96

433

376

349

4. Of lands held by religious corporation. Boston Soc.
of Redemptionist Fathers v. Boston (Mass. S. C.). . 375
See Constitutional Law: Eminent Domain; Franchise ·
National Banks.

TAX COLLECTOR. Liability of, for false return.
Raynsford v. Phelps (Mich. S. C.)
TELEGRAPH. See Contract; Practice.
TELEPHONE. Contract with patentee to deny
privilege to telegraph company invalid. State ex
rel. Am. Un. Telegraph Co. v. Bell Telephone Co.
(St. Louis C. C.)

TENANTS IN ENTIRETY. See Husband and
Wife.

TENDER. Pleading; admits the same to be due;

[blocks in formation]

270

363

496

297

[blocks in formation]

PAGE.

[blocks in formation]

76

ULTRA VIRES. Savings bank may borrow money
and mortgage securities; estoppel by law does not
bind public. Ward v. Johnson (Ill S. C.)..
UNITED STATES. See Confiscation act.
USAGE. As to sale of tobacco by weight at time of
packing instead of at that of sale; evidence; one
witness may prove usage. Jones v. Hoey (Mass. S. C.) 297
USURY Accommodation paper; finding of referee
on conflicting evidence; certificate by maker of, no
defense; evidence of intent; consideration; ex-
change of obligations. Bayliss v. Cockroft (N. Y.
App.)...

2.-Equitable action to relieve from usurious contract.
Purnell v. Vaughan (N. C. S. C.)

3. By agent, not chargeable to principal not cognizant.
Van Wyck v. Walters (N. Y. App.).
4.-Contract will not be presumed to be usurious in
absence of evidence to the contrary; compound in-
terest not of itself usurious; attorney's fee, condition
for lawful. Miner v. Paris Exchange Bank (Tex.
S. C.)

5.-As defense in equitable action. Matter of Hoole
(U. S. D C., N. Y.)....
6.-Negotiable instruments; note made and payable in
New York for use in another State. Wayne County
Savings Bank v. Low (N. Y. App.)...
7.-Mortgage; parol evidence; estoppel by guaranty
of mortgage. Fellows v. Wallace (Buff. S. C.).
8.-Will not be implied where no agreement therefor
exists; commissions. Guggenheimer v. Geiszler (N.
Y. App.)

See Constitutional Law; Insurance, Life.
UTAH. See Conflict of Law.

[blocks in formation]

VILLAGE. See Municipal Corporations.
VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION. Dissolution of;
courts will not interfere as to, where rules of asso-
ciation provide remedy; not partnership. Lafond v.
Deems (N. Y. App.)....

WAGER. See Contract.

55

218

175

478

317

346

115

155

443

....... 315

WAIVER. Appearance in justice's court; jurisdic-
tion. Lane v. Leach (Mich S. C.).

255

305

See Exemption; Insurance, Fire; Lease; Practice.
WAREHOUSE RECEIPT. See Action.
WARRANT. See Criminal Law.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

12.- On separate sheets of paper; extrinsic evidence to
show constituent parts. Gould v. Lakes (Eng. Prob.
D.)....

13. Takes effect as to testator's estate at death; con-
struction. Boyes v. Cook (Eng, App.)...
14.-Services to testator paid by legacy; Court of Ap-
peals will not reverse on facts; evidence; parol not
admissible to show testator's intention as to legacy;
presumptions as to legacies. Reynolds v. Robinson
(N. Y. App.)

See Bequest; Insanity; Parties; Witness.

519

158

395

PAGE.

[blocks in formation]

THE ALBANY LAW JOURNAL:

A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE LAW AND THE LAWYERS.

The Albany Law Journal.

JU

ALBANY, JULY 3, 1880.

CURRENT TOPICS.

UST as the warm weather and vacation are coming on, when materials for current topics become scarce, it is a great relief to be judicially informed that "a law weekly is not a newspaper." This was held in Beecher v. Stevens, 25 Minn. 146, under a statute requiring publication of summons in a newspaper, in regard to our much esteemed contemporary the Northwestern Reporter. The court observed: "This is a twelve-page weekly publication, somewhat different in size and shape from an ordinary newspaper, though the difference is not such as to render it improper to denominate it a newspaper, provided its usual contents are, in general character, like the usual contents of newspapers. It purports to be and is 'devoted specially to the interests of the legal profession.' Its usual contents are the general laws of this State, published shortly after their passage, the 'decisions' of the Supreme Court of this State, the decisions' of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and occasional decisions of other courts, a court directory, cards of attorneys and counsellors-at-law, a list of transfers of real estate in Ramsey county, advertisements and notices of law books, about a page of miscellaneous advertisements, and legal anecdotes. Except as above, it does not publish, nor assume to publish, what is understood by the current news, or news of the day. Newspapers are of so many varieties that it would be next to impossible to give any brief definition which would include and describe all

kinds of newspapers. We are not called upon to incur the risk of giving any such definition at this time. It will be sufficient for all the purposes of this case to say, that in the ordinary understanding of the word, a newspaper is a publication which usually contains, among other things, what is called the general news, the current news, or the news of the day; and nothing which does not usually contain such news, and is intended for general circulation, is a newspaper, in the ordinary sense of the VOL. 22.- No. 1.

word. Such a newspaper is a publication adapted to the general reader. Now, in the absence of some controlling consideration to the contrary, the statute is to be taken to have used the word newspaper in this its ordinary sense, or as Gen. St., ch. 4, § 1, expresses it, according to the common and approved usage of the language;' and when the object of the publication of a summons is considered, the reasonableness of such a construction of the word newspaper as requires the publication to be made where it will be likely to meet the eye of the general reader, is quite apparent. For these reasons, we are of opinion that the Northwestern Reporter,' though it may properly enough be denominated a legal newspaper,' is not a newspaper within the meaning of the statute above cited."

The London Law Times seems to think that the legal profession are growing rich too fast. That journal recently remarked: "It is seldom that an English judge, upon the bench, condemns the excessive costs of litigation, and of legal proceedings generally, in this country. We would that it were done more often, hardly less in the interest of the profession, than on public grounds. We hope that the strong, but becoming language in which Lord Justice James recently condemned the enormous cost of litigation, will not be lost upon our profession, and especially upon those members of it upon whom the responsibilities of a seat in Parliament are now resting. Is it wise, we ask, for lawyers to try the experiment of leaving laymen, both in and out of Parliament, to cut down the cost of legal proceedings? Is it not the duty of the legal profession itself to take up this question and apply the necessary remedies, some of which are already at hand? Any sufficient, and therefore substantial, alterations in legal procedure, must necessarily affect large numbers of members of the profession; in some cases adversely, and in others to their advantage. Among the sources which give rise to costs, the incurring of which might often be avoided, the following may be mentioned: Pleadings, which practice the Judicature Acts have to all intents and purposes preserved; the central, instead of the local administration of justice; the interests and privileges of the bar; the system by which solicitors are remunerated; the practice of the

judges in granting new trials; the unnecessarily large fees often received by counsel, and allowed on taxation; the scale of costs drawn with a distinct view of encouraging solicitors to employ counsel, instead of vice versa; the delay in dealing with the business of the High Court of Justice; the uncertainty of the law as at present administered, in the absence of a code, and in view of the enormous accumulation of case law, and by which litigation sometimes becomes little better than a gambling speculation; and finally, both branches of the profession are filled to overcrowding, and the result is a residuum in both branches of speculative lawyers, who are a danger to society, and who include the black sheep of the profession." In the same connection the London Law Journal speaks of a recent lawsuit, involving £21, and four times tried, in which the defendant's costs amounted to between £400 and £500, and the total costs to probably £1,000, "facts which lawyers will read with humiliation." These words of the Times are well worth heeding in this country. Lawyers should recall the fable of the goose that laid the golden egg. Is there any lawyer whose services are worth $250 a day? We ask for information, for we know some lawyers who get that amount.

If that construction is right, it would prevent the owner of a private house from having a balcony, verandah, or other harmless projection, if it projected beyond the vertical line. We are persuaded, looking at the act, that this was not its intention. The object of the string of sections relating to footways was to keep them clear for foot-passengers, and of the words 'over or' was to meet the case of a projection not actually touching the foot-path, but at the same time an obstruction to foot-passengers. Therefore, the words referring to shop fronts, etc., are inserted to except them, under certain conditions, from this section. If the intention had been to prevent projections all the way up the house, we should not have expected to find the exceptions relating to facias. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the magistrate took the right view, and that these sections are not intended to preserve the free passage of air, but only the free passage of footpassengers."

In Dinsmore v. Nashville, etc., Railroad Co., post, the court give the following interesting information as to the magnitude of the express carrying business in this country: "The express business, which had its inception as herein previously stated, now extends all over the States; is carried on by numerous organizations, which meet the requirements of the several localities in which they do business; and occupies every railroad line in the country available for the purpose. They have an invested capital of over $30,000,000, and the Adams and Southern Express Companies have in daily use and occupation 21,216 miles of railroad; employ 4,297 persons; make 911 daily trips, over 64,560 miles, aggregating 19,884,420 miles of travel annually. And for the transportation of their freights they pay the railroad companies over $2,000,000 per year. It is further alleged, as showing the extent and magnitude of the express business, that these companies carried for the government $1,200,

The case of Goldstraw v. Duckworth, in the Queen's Bench Division, March 23, 1880 (42 L. T. [N. S.] 440), will be of interest to residents in cities and towns who wish to put out oriel windows. A statute provided that "no projection of any kind shall be made in front of any building over or upon the pavement of any street," with exceptions for shop fronts, doorways, cornices and pilasters, under certain conditions. The sections immediately preceding prohibited the discharge of water, steam and smoke upon the footways or into the street, and provided for covering openings in or into the footways. It was held that the words "over or" only included such projections as would be an obstruction to foot passengers, and did not include projec-000,000 in 1878, and 661,000,000 in 1879, and tions all the way up a house. On the hearing of the information it was proved that the projection complained of was an oriel window of stonework, which measured from the bottom to the top 11 ft., and projected over the foot-path 2 ft. 6 in., and that the distance between the lowest part of the window and the foot-path was 14 to 15 feet, and that such oriel window was not in the nature of a shop front, doorway, cornice or pilaster, and also that the land over which the window projected was to the extent of 2 ft. 6 in. part of the public highway, being, in fact, the foot pavement of the street. It was, however, proved to the magistrate that the window was not any nuisance or obstruction, except only so far as any such projection necessarily interferes with the access of light and air to the street, and with N connection with Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co., the regularity of the line of buildings in the street, 21 A. L. J. 442, we call attention to the case just and that it did not interfere with the free use of reported, of Franklin Coal Co. v. McMillan, 49 Md. the foot-path. The court said: "It is contended| 549, holding the contrary doctrine, namely, that the that the words 'over or' upon the pavement apply measure of damages in an action for waste for minto any projection in any building, however high. I ing coal, where the mining is innocently done under

for private parties, in the last-named year, the enormous sum of $1,050,000,000; and that the Adams Express Company alone receives and disburses, in New York city, 14,000 packages daily, employing therefor, in connection with their general business, 918 horses, with the necessary number of wagons." Mr. Schouler says (Bailments, 316): "The American pioneer in that business is said to have journeyed in person, by steamboat and rail car, between New York and Boston, with all his customers' valuables contained in a hand satchel."

IN

NOTES OF CASES.

« AnteriorContinuar »