« AnteriorContinuar »
tickets, receive and count their change, if any, and SALE-CONDITIONAL~"SATISFACTORY."-If au artiprepare to board the train, without unuecessary inter- | cle is delivered to a purchaser, to bo retained and paid ference with each other. But the language "before ) for by him if satisfactory, the purohaser may repudithe departare of the train" does not require that the ate the sale if such article prove bona fide, and in fact office shall remain open up to the instant the train | unsatisfactory. The sale depends upon the mental moves off. The question is, might the passenger have condition or operatiou of the defendant as satisfied or procured a ticket within a reasonable time before the dissatisfied with the manner in which the fans worked, departure, and not up the very moment when the not generally or anywhere, but in that particular shop. wheels began to move? Iowa Sup. Ct., June 9, 1886. The plaintiff is subject to such condition or operation Everett v. Chicago, R. 1. & P. R. Co. Opinion by Roth of the mind of the defendant only when induced or rock, J.
caused by the test prescribed, otherwise they might
be feigued, capricious or mercenary. We think the ROAD - LIABILITY
true rule in such a case is that if the fans are not bouA railroad company cannot escape liability for an
estly and in good faith satisfactory to the defendant, injury by negligence by a voluntary surrender of its ) and the defendant notified the plaintiff of that fact in road into the hands of lessees, vuless there be some
a reasonable time, then, and in that case, there had special statutory permission therefor. It is regarded been no sale, and the defendant is not liable for the as settled that where one railroad company is author- price. Many respectable authorities hold that such a ized by law to contract or lease its road to another sale is strictly illusory, and the property passes only company, it is not responsible for the torts committed at the option of the buyer. But we think the more by the other company in the running of its trains, or
reasonable rule is the one above laid down, and is supthe management of the road. Mahoney v. Atlantic & ported by better authority. A recent case in the CirSt. L. R. Co., 63 Me. 68; Ditohett v. Spuyten Duyvil,cuit Court of the United States for the District of etc., R. Co., 67 N. Y. 425. Unless however it is spec. California, of Silsby Manufg. Co. v. Town of Chico, 24 ially authorized by statute to make such lease of its Fed. Rep. 893, was closely analogous to this case. The road, it camot, by doing it, defeat its obligations to steam engine was sold " it satisfactory" to the buyer, the pablic, or escape the liability which the law im- It was held by Sawyer, J., that where under a conposes for torts, although committed by its lessee. Mr. tract an article is made and delivered which shall be Pierce says: “The company cannot, in the absence of satisfactory to the purchaser, it must in fact be satisspecial statute authority and exemption, divest itself factory to him or he is not bound to take it. But of responsibility for the torts of persons operating its where the purchaser is in fact satisfied, but frauduroad, by transferring its corporate powers, or leasing | lently and in bad faith declares that he is not satisthe road to them. It cannot by its own act absolve fied, the contract has been fully performed by the itself from its publio obligations without the consent vendor, and the purchaser is bound to accept the artiof the Legislature. It is liable for injuries to its pas. clo. Indeed, to such import are really all of the ausengers caused by the negligence of another which it thorities, which hold simply that to be satisfied in allows to use its road." Pierce Railr. 283. And this such a case is sufficient reason to refuse the purchase, view, by reference to the authorities cited in the notes,
for to be dissatisfied is a fact, and must be a verity, will be found to be supported by the weight of judic and not a pretext. It is not “I will not accept itial decisions. See also Tbomas v. R. Co., 101 U. S. 72:
will not have it "- but “it is not satisfactory," or "I We must take it then, as the accepted doctrine in this
am really and honestly dissatisfied with it." This is country that a railroad company cannot escape the implied in the very statement of the principle. Sup. performance of any duty or obligation, imposed by its Ct. Wis., May 15, 1896. Exhaust Ventilator Co. v. charter or the general laws of the State, by a volun- Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. Opinion by Orton, J. tary surrender of its road into the hands of lessees.
SHIP AND SHIPPING--COLLISION-COMPULSORY PIRailroad Co. v. Brow11, 17 Wall. 445; Freeman v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 28 Min. 443; Chicage & St.
LOTAGE.--Although the pilot in charge of a ship by P. R. Co. v. McCarthy, 20 III. 385; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. compulsion of law is under ordinary circumstances Dunbar, id. 623; Chicago & R. I. R. Co. v. Whipple, 22 solely responsible for getting the ship under way, yet id. 105; Nelsou v. V. R. Co., 26 Vt. 717; McElroy v.
if the weather is so bad, by reason of fog or other cirNashua, etc., R. Co., 4 Cush. 400; R. Co. v. Barron, 5
cumstances, as to make navigation perilous and to give Wall. 104. The defendant may contract for the con
rise to a plain prospect of danger, it is the duty of the struction of its road, but it cannot escape liability for
master to interfere, and he is to blame if he permits injuries to passengers caused by the negligence of
his vessel to get under way in such circumstances. another which it permits or allows to une its road for
Where a pilot in charge of a vessel by compulsion of the purposes of traffic. In such case, as regards the
law gives at the suggestion of the master an improper public, those who operate the road must be regarded order which brings about a collision, such iuterference as the agents of the corporation. This doctrine is in by the master does not transfer the responsibility of accordance with sound public policy; for it would
the pilot to the master so as to deprive the shipowners certainly be against the public interest to allow cor
of the defense of compulsory pilotage to an action to porations, invested by the State with important fran
recover the damages occasioned by the collision. In chises and privileges, and incorporated to discharge &
The Lochlibo, 3 W. R. 310, it was held that a suggespublic duty as well as to subserve a private benefit, to
tion made to the pilot by the master does not trausfer shirk its responsibilities, or shift its duties and liabil- the responsibility from him to the master. Though it ities to other, perhaps irresponsible parties. Except
would be the duty of the master to make suggestions as authorized by statute, it cannot relieve itself from
to the pilot from time to time, it rests with the pilot responsibility for the exercise of its corporate powers
to form his own opinion as to the value of the sugges. and franchises. The case of Cunningham v. Railroad
tion. It is only when the captain actually gives an orCo., 51 Tex. 503, principally relied upon by the defend- der coutrary to the pilot that he takes the responsiant, does not meet the facts of the case here. There bility for the manæuvre on himself. Prob. Dir, & the trains under the coutrol of the contractor were
Adm. Dir., 54 L. T. Rep. 576. The Oakland. Opinion not being used for the purposes of traffic, but for the by Sir James Hanney. purposes of construction, when the injury occurred. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - ORAL Oregou Sup. Ct., May 24, 1886. Lakini v. Williamette Valley R. Co. Opinion by Lord, J
An oral agreement to couvey lands in cousideration of
AGREEMENT TO CONSIDERATION OF SUPPORT.
support will not be specifically enforced. It is one damages he claims to have sustained. In Levy v. which involves personal service of such a character that Brush, 45 N. Y. 589, it was held, where an oral agreein order to its proper execution relations of peculiar ment was entered into between the plaintiff and deconfidence and esteem, if not affection, should prevail | fendant, by which the latter agreed to purchase land, between the parties concerned. To undertake to en- and pay tberefor from his own funds the necessary force such a contract between parties mutually dis- amount for that purpose, for the joiut benefit of both, trustful of each other would bo productive of nothing the plaintiff to reimburse one-half the money so paid, but confusion and mischief. Fry Spec. Perf. 44; Pom. the deed to be taken in the name of both, the defend.. Cont. par. 310. Speaking for this court at a very early aut having made the purchase, and taken the contract period in its history, Holman, J., said: “A covenant in his own name, and refused to convey one-balf to the for service, if performed at all, must be performed un- plaintiff, that no action would lie to compel the execuder the eye of the master, and might, as in the case tion of the agreement; that the case was within the before us. require a number of years. Such a perform- statute of frands, and that the defendant had a perance, if enforced by law, would produce a state of fect right, both at law and in equity, to refuse perservitude as degrading and demoralizing in its conse- formance. In Rawdon v. Dodge, 40. Mich. 697, the quences as a state of absoluto slavery.” Case of Mary agreement was oral that Dodge should cause to be Clark, 1 Blackf. 122. The same might be said of a case, conveyed to Rawdon an interest in land held by one where one was compelled to be the involuntary recipi. Sayles; and Mr. Justice Graves, in delivering the ent of the services or suport of another under a con- opinion of the court, said: “It is not claimed that tract such as is here exhibited. That the services were written evidence was not necessary to show the agreeto be performed under the guise of administering sup
ment for the transfer of the equity of redemption, or port, might not in any degree mitigate the condition that there was any such evidence, and the record imof the recipient, nor render his situation less irritating ports that no proper writing was ever made. The than if subjected to a species of slavery. Whatever it agreement was that an interest beld by Sayles in the may have been formerly in other States, it was always
land should be conveyed to Rawdon, and the transacthe rule here, and is now well settled everywhere, that
tion was within the words and policy of the statute. specific performance of a contract involving personal
How. St., S$ 6179-6181. The fact that the interest to service, special ability, or peculiar confidence, will not be transferred was noi in Dodge, but was vested in be enforced. The jurisdiction invoked in this case is Sayles, could make no difference. It was a contract manifestly impracticable. As well might the court be
for the sale of an interest in land, and it is not imasked to reg the domestic affairs of a family by portant that the title then resided in a third person." its decree as to undertake the supervision of a contract
See also Wright v. De Groff, 14 Mich. 163; Scott v. such as that exhibited. Unless a contract can be spe
Bush, 29 id. 523; Erben v. Lorillard, 19 N. Y. 299; Purcifically enforced as to both parties, a court will not
cell v. Miner, 4 Wall 513. Mich. Sup. Ct., June 10, interfere. Being unable to execute the contract
1886. Raub v. Smith. Opinion by Campbell, C. J. against the plaintiffs, nothing remained for the court
TRUSTEE-WRONGFUL PLEDGE OF TRUST FUNDS.in this instance except to decline to compel the execu
Fisher, the plaintiff, and Hill, as trustee of the estate tion of a deed in their favor. So far as the agreement
of Ira C. Voorhees, held nine railroad coupon bonds, remains unperformed the appellee cannot be com
which were deposited by them for safe-keeping in the pelled to perform it. The appellants must be left to
defendant bauk. Hill was also cashier of the bank. their remedy at law. That an adequate remedy is available to them affords an additional reason why a
Without the knowledge of the president or any direc
tor of the bank, Hill took from the bank a sum of court of equity will refuse to enforce the contract.
money, for which he put in the bank his own vote, Among others, the following authorities illustrate the
which he kept in his custody as cashier. The transrules relating to the enforcement of agreemeuts of the
action did not appear on the books of the bank. The general character under consideration: Blanchard v.
note purported to pledge as security for its payment Detroit, etc., R. Co., 31 Mich. 43; Buck v. Smith, 29
nine bonds of the description of those deposited by id. 166; Marble Co. y. Ripley, 10 Wall. 339; Cooper
the trustees. After Hill's death the note was found v. Pena, 21 Cal. 404; Port Clinton R. Co. v. Cleveland,
by the officers of the bauk, but the bonds did not acetc., R. Co., 13 Ohio St. 544; Johnson v. Shrewsbury,
company it. They were found in a separate envelope, etc., R. Co., 3 De Gex, M. & G. 914; Blackett v. Bates,
indorsed “C. S. Hill," with the name “Ira C. VoorL. R., 1 Ch. 117; Pom. Eq. Jur. par. 1405. lnd. Sup. Ct., hees." written on the bonds in his own hand. It did May 25, 1886. Ikerd v. Beavers. Opinion by Mitchell, J.
not appear that the president of the bank, or either of STATUTE OF FRAUDS- ORAL AGREEMENT TO FORM the directors, had ever seen or had any knowledge of PARTNERSHIP TO PURCHASE LAXD).- An oral agree- the note or bonds in Hill's life-time. Held, that the ment to form a copartnership for the purchase of land, plaintiff was entitled to recover the bonds from the including a contract to sell land, is void under the bauk in the absence of proof to establish an actual destatute of frauds. By the terms of the agreement the livery of the bonds by Hill to the bank. It is con defendants were to negotiate for the purchase for the ceded that railroad coupon bonds, payable to bearer, parties, take the title in their names, and pay the pur. like commercial paper or bank bills, pass by delivery, chase money therefor; the defendants to be owners of and that the purchaser of such bonds in good faith for two-thirds and the plaintiff one-third of the property, value, without actual notice of any defect in the title, when thus purchased, and the plaintiff to reimburse can hold them against the true owner. The presithe defendants for his one-third of the purchase price dent and directors of the bank being without knowlin his sawing and converting the timber into lumber edge of the fraud perpetrated by Hill, it is insisted, for sale. Clearly, we think, the agreement sued upon under the authority of First National Bank v. Chrisincluded a contract for the sale of land which was not topher, 11 Vroom, 435, that the title of the bank is unin writing, and void under the statute of frauds, taiuted by the fact tbat the bank cashier misapproabove given. The contract for the purchase of the priated the bonds in breach of his trust. In the case land was included in the agreement to engage in the cited it was properly held that a director offering for copartnership, and is inade the basis thereof, and the
discount a note, of which he is the owner, to the bank failure of the defendants to perform their undertak- of which he is a director, is regarded in tbe transacings relating thereto, as stated in the agreement sued tion as a stranger, and the bank is not chargeable with upon, constitutes the plaintiff's sole ground for the the knowledge of such director of an infirmity or de
fect in the consideration of the note. There the seen the probable diminution of the quantity of water
WILL- DYING WITHOUT ISSUE. — A testator gave them obtained from the bank the proceeds of the dis
certain estate to his son, with a gift over if he should count of it. But Hill, without the knowledge of the
die during minority or without issue. Held, upon a bank, committed the fraud. The bank was not de
construction of the whole will, that the word “or" ceived; it had no knowledge of the transaction. This
should read “and,'' and that the son's estate became is not a case where bonds were taken in good faith for
indefeasible on bis attaining his majority. Conn. Sup. valuable consideration without notice. The bank did
Ct., Feb. 5, 1886. Phelps v. Bates. Opinion by Carnot take them relying on the title of Hill; the bank
THE PENALTY OF DEATI.
Commons is not disposed to try rash experiments. It WATERS AND WATER-COURSES-PRESCRIPTIVE USE- cannot be said that Sir Joseph Pease offered the House GRADUAL DIMINUTION OF STREAM.-Where a riparian any great inducement to embark on his doubtful venowner has acquired a prescriptive right to use the ture. His statistics may have been indisputable, but waters of a stream for the purpose of irrigation, a certainly they were not undisputed. Or ratber to put lower riparian proprietor cannot restrain him from so it quite accurately, they were met by other statistics doing on the ground that the diversion of the water has which pointed to the opposite conclusion. If in Belbecome injurious through a gradual diminution in the gium and the Netherlands no increase of murders bas natural volume of the stream. The general rule, as
followed upon the disuse of capital punishment, a very declared in Washb. Easem., $ 49, is invoked, that the great increase has followed upon a similar step in time from which the period is to be reckoned in com- Switzerland and Würtemberg. The former country, puting the duration of a continuous enjoyment is when | indeed, bas returned upon itself, and capital punishthe injury or invasion of right begins, and not the ment is once more lawful. Moreover a part of Sir time when the party causing it began tbat which fin- Joseph Pease's speech would have been made in supally creates the injury. The correctness of this rule port of Mr. Howard Vincent's amendment. The may be conceded, yet it is not applicable to the facts bluudering executious of which so much has lately of the present case. If the injury here was caused by been heard reflect great discredit on the present bapa change of the dam or of the ditches, or by suffering hazard method of appointing executioners, but they the latter to become filled up or clogged (Polly v. Mc- have no bearing on the question whether a murderer Call, 37 Ala. 20), or by applying the water to a differ- ought to be banged or imprisoned for life. The nument use, or if injury was caused by any late act, either ber of applicatious show that the dislike generally felt of omission or of commission, on the part of the appel. toward the office is very far from being universal; and lees, it might be said they had previously only begun wherever there is competition, it ought not to be imthe work which caused the injury; but such not
possible to find a competent man for the post. So, this case. Here the whole action and work of the ap- too, it is quite true that the existing definition of murpellees is a continuance only of that which was done der is too wide. Now that certain classes of murderon the ground forty years ago, and the water continues ers are never executed, what is the use of passing sento be used for the same purpose now as then. It is tence of death on them? The end the legislator held in Strickler v. Todd, 10 Serg. & R. 63, to be well- should keep before him in the allotment of punishsettled law, if there has been an uninterrupted and ment to crime will be attained in proportion to the exclusive enjoyment for more than twenty-one years certainty with which the one is seen to follow upon the of water in any particular way, it affords a conclusive other. The difficulty of drawing a line between mur[resumption of right in the party so enjoying it, equal
ders and murders may be great, but we refuse to be. to a right by prescription. The same rule is substan- lieve that it is insuperable. Judges and crown cowtially declared in Hoy v. Sterrett, 2 Watts. 327; Dar
sel vie with one another in imploring juries not to fiud lington v. Painter, 7 Penn. St. 473; Wheatley v. Chris- a prisoner guilty of murder unless the evidence is irman, 24 id. 303. The law presumes a grant of the ease
resistible; and if occasionally a verdict is open to quesment, the extent of which is measured, not by the act
tion, the home secretary is certaiu to advise a reual or average depth of the waters at any given point, prieve. The impression that innocent men are banged but by the nature and extent of the obstruction itself. rests, we faucy, on the fact that men who have been Gehman v. Erdman, 41 Leg. Int. 388. When one uses
sentenced to death and reprieved are sometimes an easement whenever he sees fit, without asking leave
proved to be immocent. There are two reasons for reor without objection, the use is adverse, and an ad- taining capital punishment which have los none of verse enjoyment for twenty-one years gives an indis
their force. It is a common, and on the whole, valid putable title to the enjoyment. Garrett v. Jackson, argument for limiting the penalty of death to murder, 20 Penn. St. 331. The work on the ground was not
that if you inflict it for any other crime, however only under a claim of right, but it was open, visible
heinous, there will be a strong temptation to add murand notorious. The parties who owned the property
der to that other crime in order to get rid of a witness. below could foresee and anticipate the ultimate effect
The abolition of capital punishment would have preof the diversion of the water, as well as the parties
cisely the same result. It would be directly to the in who caused it. The fact that they may not have fore
terest of a burglar to put to death a man who tried to
defend his property, because to do so would subject liam Gould. Another uncle of the deceased carried him to no greater penalty, while by making ideu- on the law book business in New York city, the sec. tification difficult it would make conviction improb- ond venture of the kind in the United States, the able. There are many cases in which the commission ovly other one being in Philadelphia. That was one of a crime would be rendered easier by killing some hundred years ago, and one or another of the family one; and to all appearance, what mainly deters the has been engaged in it ever since. Afterward Wilcriminal from thus doubling his guilt is his knowl. liam Gould associated his brother Anthony with him, edge that in doing so he will much more than double and the firm became William and A. Gould & Co. his punishment. Death is something different in kind William died in 1846, and young William was then adfrom perpetual imprisonment, and though he is ready mitted to the firm, as was David Banks, the father of to risk the one, he is not ready to risk the other. The ex-Mayor Banks, and the title became Gould, Banks whole force of this motive would disappear if he could & Gould. This continued until 1857, when the Goulds double his guilt and yet leave his punishment what it separated from Banks, and William established himwas. The second of these still valid reasons is that the self in the present location at No. 70 State street, abolition of capital punishment would be a virtual where he subsequently associated with him his son gift of impunity to prisoners already under sentence William, and the firm became William Gould & Son. of imprisonment for life. Whatever they may do, It is now known as William Gould, Jr., & Co. The nothing worse can befall them than has befallen them business methods and unimpeachable integrity of the already. It would be absurd to allot a lighter punish. deceased and bis uncle had given the house the very ment to a second murder than has already been allot- highest standing among the legal profession in this ted to a first-to put a man on bread and water for a State and outside of it. In 1874, while in attendance week for killing a prison warder, when he has been at court, he had a stroke of paralysis, and from that sentenced to penal servitude for life for killing his time down to his death he had been an invalid. It worst enemy. Yet the law would forbid the infliction was not until 1885 however that he resigned the conof the only greater punishment, and from the nature
duct of his business to his sous. He had eleven chil. of the case, the original puvishment cannot be re
dren, eight of whom — five sons and three daughters – peated. There is no way that we can see out of this survive him. Mr. Gould's name was synonymous dilemma; cousequently, the one thing to be done is to
with honor and integrity, and he was president of one retain capital punishment. At least, if we let it go, of our banks for twenty years. He was a remarkably we shall have greatly to increase our prison staff, to
earnest and active Christian, and his life was filled instruct the men composing it to be on the watch for with good works. the first sigu of disturbance, and then to shoot freely by way of prevention, since we must not hang by way of penalty. One of the speakers in the recent debate
NOTES. pleaded not for the life of a murderer, but for his less painful death. “There are other modes of taking Returning thanks at the same dinner for the bar, life besides the barbarous way of hanging a man by Sir Henry James, Q. C., said that “its members had the neck until he is dead." In this, no doubt, Mr. nothing to be ashamed of, and they had ever done Cooke is right. The range of choice is no longer their duty to the best of their ability." No doubt, limited to the axe, the cord, the musket and the guil- no doubt. No man is able to be in two places at lotine; a mask charged with prussic acid, a glass of once, so that when they fail to appear in a case for pleasantly flavored liquid, a hermetically sealed cham- which they have been paid, they have done their duty ber, would deprive death, if not of its terrors, at all to the best of their ability. They cannot be in two events of its suffering. The murderer would be better places at once.--Gibson's Law Notes. off in this respect than the majority of his fellow men. There is physical agouy--at times very great
THE WITNESS. physical agony-attending upon their deaths; there
He calmly takes his place, would be none at all attending upon bis. We agree
And stands with stately grace, with Mr. Cooke that when the law is taking life, it
A smile upon his face, ought not to take it with unnecessary pain; but we do
Broad and bland. not see that we are bound to call in the help of science to make the death of a murderer less painful than it
I must affirm, he said, would probably have been if he had uever been guilty
And proudly raised his head; of murder. There is no reason however to believe
An oath to me is dead, that hanging is more painful than any of the more
On the stand. ordinary forms of death. It might be long before the
The lawyers daze his wits, relatives of a man who had been killed by poison felt
Literally give him fits, as much disgraced as they would had he been banged.
And break him all to bits, Moreorer, frequent repetition has made this form of
In their net. death sufficiently familiar to take hold of the popular imagination. Meu who are tempted to murder can call
Questions they shrewdly ply, up before their mental vision all the circumstances of
Till they make the witness lie; the gallows; and where the imagination is sluggish,
And he wishes he may die, this is in itself a considerable advantage.- Spectator.
You can bet.
With hot and crimson face,
A decidely hard case,
Made to squirm. T is appropriate that we should notice the recent death of William Gould, the oldest law book pub
He is surly as a bear; lisher of this city. He was born in Caldwell, N. J., in
And to himself right there 1814, where his ancestors had been settled for a cen
He furiously doth swear, tury. In 1836 he came to this city, and entered upon
-Montreal Legal News. the law book publishing business with his uncle, Wil
well attended as that of Albany. They argue from The Albany Law Journal.
the fact that young men from this State are found
at the law schools of other States that the facilities ALBANY, JULY 31, 1886.
here are deficient. We do not so regard the mat
ter. These schools could easily and efficiently inCURRENT TOPICS.
struct many more students, and in former times they did so. But of late there has been a falling
off in attendance. This is simply because students TP Asociation will be held at Saratoga Springs in tedentro trate licencir al horter term of study, and on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, August 18th, in some States, we believe, on motion upon gradua19th and 20th, 1886. The sessions will be held at
tion. When such was the rule in this State the 10 o'clock, A. m., and 7.30 P. M., on Wednesday and Albany Law School frequently had more than one Thursday, and at 10 o'clock, A. M., on Friday, at
hundred attendants at one term, instead of fifty as Putnam's Music Hall, at the corner of Broadway
ung men of affluent means, who can afford and Phila street, nearly opposite the United States
the long and expensive course of Harvard or ColumHotel. The following is the order of exercises: Wednesday morning - The president's address, by will naturally go where they can get admission the
bia, will naturally go there, but poor young men Wm. Allen Butler, of New York; nomination and election of members; election of the general coun
soonest and the most cheaply. This is human nacil; reports of the secretary and treasurer; report different they will learn their mistake. We do not
ture, and if the Cornell people expect any thing of the executive committee. Wednesday evening
believe that another law school in this State will A paper by Johnson T. Platt, of Connecticut, on “The Opportunity for the Development of Juris
pay expenses under the present rules of admission prudence in the United States;" a paper by Wil
to practice. So we think the committee put it too liam P. Wells, of Michigan, on “The Dartmouth strongly when they say: “These facts lead us irreCollege Case and Private Corporations;" discussion sistibly to the conclusion that the opportunities for upon the subjects of the papers read. Thursday legal education in the State of New York are either morning – The annual address, by Thomas J. Sem extremely meager," although it may be admitted, as mes, of Louisiana; reports of standing committees; desired by students seeking the legal profession."
they further say, that they “are not of the kind reports of special committees, including the special
We wish the new law school success, but we do not
Thursday evening - A paper by
We lately received a postal card asking us to Control over Municipal Corporations;" discussion prescribe a preventive of "carpet bugs." A little upon the subject of the paper read, and further dis- puzzled, we soon discovered that the inquiry was cussion on the reports of the special committees directed to the Albany Evening Journal, which proFriday morning – Nomination of officers; unfin- fesses to answer all sorts of questions, and someished business ; miscellaneous business; election of times lays down some very bad law. But there has officers. The annual dinper will be given at the
been a recent “bug case” in the English courts, Grand Union Hotel at 8.30 o'clock on Friday where a tenant of a furnished house tried to avoid evening.
his liability for rent on the ground that the prem
ises were infested by bugs. This was on the auMr. Tyler's review of Professor Finch's book in thority of the old case of Smith v. Marrable, which another column comes to us at the same time with has lost its authority. The court however steered a report to Cornell University of a “special com- around that case, as we infer from the following mittee on the establishment of a department of law, from the Law Times: “The daily press seems to together, with a preliminary announcement of the have been unduly exercised about the 'bug case,' action of the trustees in establishing such a depart- in which Mr. Justice Mathew gave judgment last ment.” The report is signed by Messrs. C. A. Saturday. The point decided wis the simplest isAdams, D. Boardman, Stewart L. Woodford, James sue of fact. The defendant accepted the onus of F. Gluck and George R. Wiliams. There is of the issue, and proved the discovery of six bugs in course nothing to be said against the founding of an attic on the third floor of the house in question. such a department of university education as a lux- This was before she came into possession, which in ury, or a charity, or as matter of pride, but in the point of fact was never taken. The six were not conclusion of the committee that provisions for le- scattered about the room. They were a compact gal education in this State are not already ample, body, apparently caught in the act of marching we regard the committee as in error, and we foresee either in or out of a hole in the wall. The defendthat the university will be disappointed in the at- ant's case never got further than this, and the tendance upon this course. The committee speak | learned judge simply held that nothing had been of the Columbia College Law School and of the shown on which he could find the house so unfit for Albany Law School, but they do not mention that habitation as to bring it within the doctrine of of the University of New York, which has been as Smith v. Marrahle. Whether he was right or wrong
Vol. 34 - No. 5.