« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
of building remaining thereon. Johnson v. Heiser
imposed by law passed subsequent to execution.
estoppel; office vacant by default in Aling bond
legal action against debtor. Hunt v. Purdy (N. Y.
tion of instrument; change of employment. Collier
ULTRA VIRES. Savings bank may borrow money
and mortgage securities ; estoppel by law does not
packing instead of at that of sale ; evidence; one
witness may prove usage. Jones v. Hoey (Mass. $. C.) 297
on conflicting evidence ; certificate by maker of, no
absence of evidence to the contrary; compound in.
New York for use in another State Wayne County
of mortgage. Fellows v. Wallace (Bufr. s. C.). 115
exists; commissions. Guggenheimer v. Geiszler (N.
VENDOR AND PURCHASER. See Fixtures;
courts will not interfere as to, where rules of asso-
TAXATION. Of corporation must be at principal
office as set forth in its certificate of incorporation ;
rant valid on its face. Moss v. Cummins (Mich.
improvement. Olive Cemetery Co. v. Philadelphia
of Redemptionist Fathers v. Boston (Mass. S. C.). . 375
privilege to telegraph company invalid. State ex
of debt without costs after suit brought, no avail ;
sale; bona fide purchaser. Taylor v. McKeand (Eng.
See Municipal Corporations.
to follow calling within specified'limits. Cook v.
restrained. Thorley's Cattle Food Co. v. Massam
palace; " right to transfer name on removal. Arms-
erty and premises where business conducted does
whisky and rock candy not. Van Beil v. Prescott
wrong-doer without knowledge, liable. Hazleton v.
See Criminal Law ; Removal of Cruses.
grain when converted. German National Bank v.
change implies power to make. Phelps v. Shrader
court. Chesterman v. Eyland (N. Y. App.) ..... 129
WAGER. See Contract.
ural stream; artificial increase in volume of stream
by act of another Sellick v. Hall (Conn. S. C.). 417
See Eminent Domain; Riparian Rights.
nesses ; mero silent presence at reading is not. Aus.
vise to children gives her fee. Foose v. Whitmore
when donees take per stirpe; intention. Ferrer v.
tingent remainder. De Lassus v. Gatewood (Mo.
nesses initialling interlineations and margin. In
the goods of Blewitt (Eng. P. D. & A. Div.). ... 113
WILL - Continued.
show constituent parts. Gould v. Lakes (Eng. Prob.
peals will not reverse on facts; evidence; parol not
WITNESS. Cor.viction of felony in one State dis-
qualifies in another State v. Foley (Nev. S. C.).. 282
ious belief, iven after he has been sworn. Arnd v.
est as heir does not disqualify. Smalley v. Smalley
THE ALBANY LAW JOURNAL:
A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE LAW AND THE LAWYERS.
word. Such a newspaper is a publication adapted The A1
to the general reader. Now, in the absence of some
controlling consideration to the contrary, the statute ALBANY, JULY 3, 1880.
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 apCURRENT TOPICS.
proved usage of the language;' and when the object
of the publication of a summons is considered, the UST as the warm weather and vacation are com
reasonableness of such a construction of the word ing on, when materials for current topics be
newspaper as requires the publication to be made come scarce, it is a great relief to be judicially where it will be likely to meet the eye of the geninformed that “ a law weekly is not a newspaper." eral reader, is quite apparent. For these reasons, This was held in Beecher v. Stevens, 25 Minn. 146,
we are of opinion that the • Northwestern Reporter,' under a statute requiring publication of summons though it may properly enough be denominated a in a newspaper, in regard to our much esteemed
legal newspaper,' is not a newspaper within the contemporary the Northwestern Reporter. The court
meaning of the statute above cited." observed : “ This is a twelve-page weekly publication, somewhat different in size and shape from an ordinary newspaper, though the difference is not The London Law Times seems to think that the legal such as to render it improper to denominate it a profession are growing rich too fast. That journal renewspaper, provided its usual contents are, in gen- cently remarked: “It is seldom that an English eral character, like the usual contents of newspapers. judge, upon the bench, condemns the excessive costs It purports to be and is devoted specially to the of litigation, and of legal proceedings generally, in interests of the legal profession.' Its usual con- this country. We would that it were done more often, tents are the general laws of this State, published hardly less in the interest of the profession, than shortly after their passage, the decisions of the on public grounds. We hope that the strong, but Supreme Court of this State, the decisions of the becoming language in which Lord Justice James reSupreme Court of Wisconsin, and occasional decis-cently condemned the enormous cost of litigation, ions of other courts, a court directory, cards of at- will not be lost upon our profession, and especially torneys and counsellors-at-law, a list of transfers of upon those members of it upon whom the responsireal estate in Ramsey county, advertisements and bilities of a seat in Parliament are now resting. Is notices of law books, about a page of miscellaneous it wise, we ask, for lawyers to try the experiment of advertisements, and legal anecdotes. Except as leaving laymen, both in and out of Parliament, to above, it does not publish, nor assume to publish, cut down the cost of legal proceedings? Is it not what is understood by the current news, or news of the duty of the legal profession itself to take up this the day. Newspapers are of so many varieties that question and apply the necessary remedies, some of it would be next to impossible to give any brief which are already at hand ? Any sufficient, and definition which would include and describe all therefore substantial, alterations in legal procedure, kinds of newspapers. We are not called upon to must necessarily affect large numbers of members of incur the risk of giving any such definition at this the profession; in some cases adversely, and in othtime. It will be sufficient for all the purposes of ers to their advantage. Among the sources which this case to say, that in the ordinary understanding give rise to costs, the incurring of which might of the word, a newspaper is a publication which often be avoided, the following may be mentioned : usually contains, among other things, what is called Pleadings, which practice the Judicature Acts have the general news, the current news, or the news of to all intents and purposes preserved; the central, the day; and nothing which does not usually con- instead of the local administration of justice; the tain such news, and is intended for general circula- interests and privileges of the bar; the system by tion, is a newspaper, in the ordinary sense of the which solicitors are remunerated; the practice of the
VOL. 22.- No. 1.
judges in granting new trials; the unneces
essarily If that construction is right, it would prevent the large fees often received by counsel, and allowed on owner of a private house from having a balcony, taxation; the scale of costs drawn with a distinct verandah, or other harmless projection, if it proview of encouraging solicitors to employ counsel, jected beyond the vertical line. We are persuaded, instead of vice versa; the delay in dealing with the looking at the act, that this was not its intention. business of the High Court of Justice; the uncer- The object of the string of sections relating to foottainty of the law as at present administered, in the ways was to keep them clear for foot-passengers, absence of a code, and in view of the enormous ac- and of the words 'over or' was to meet the case of cumulation of case law, and by which litigation a projection not actually touching the foot-path, but sometimes becomes little better than a gambling at the same time an obstruction to foot-passengers. speculation; and finally, both branches of the pro- Therefore, the words referring to shop fronts, etc., fession are filled to overcrowding, and the result is are inserted to except them, under certain condia residuum in both branches of speculative lawyers, tions, from this section. If the intention had been who are a danger to society, and who include the to prevent projections all the way up the house, we black sheep of the profession.” In the same con- should not have expected to find the exceptions renection the London Law Journal speaks of a recent | lating to facias. We are, therefore, of the opinion lawsuit, involving £21, and fo es tried, in that the magistrate took the right view, and that which the defendant's costs amounted to between these sections are not intended to preserve the free £400 and £500, and the total costs to probably passage of air, but only the free passage of foot£1,000, “facts which lawyers will read with humil
passengers.” iation." These words of the Times are well worth heeding in this country. Lawyers should recall the
In Dinsmore v. Nashville, etc., Railroad Co., post, fable of the goose that laid the golden egg. Is the court give the following interesting information there any lawyer whose services are worth $250 a
as to the magnitude of the express carrying busiday? We ask for information, for we know some
ness in this country: “The express business, which lawyers who get that amount.
had its inception as herein previously stated, now
extends all over the States; is carried on by umerThe case of Goldstraw v. Duckworth, in the
ous organizations, which meet the requirements of Queen's Bench Division, March 23, 1880 (42 L. T.
the several localities in which they do business; and [N. S.] 440), will be of interest to residents in cities occupies every railroad line in the country available and towns who wish to put out oriel windows. A
for the purpose. They have an invested capital of statute provided that "no projection of any kind
over $30,000,000, and the Adams and Southern Exshall be made in front of any building over or upon
press Companies have in daily use and occupation the pavement of any street,” with exceptions for
21,216 miles of railroad; employ 4, 297 persons; shop fronts, doorways, cornices and pilasters, under
make 911 daily trips, over 64,560 miles, aggrecertain conditions. The sections immediately pre
gating 19,884,420 miles of travel annually. And ceding prohibited the discharge of water, steam
for the transportation of their freights they pay and smoke upon the footways or into the street, and
the railroad companies over $2,000,000 per year. provided for covering openings in or into the foot- It is further alleged, as showing the extent and ways. It was held that the words “over or” only magnitude of the express business, that these included such projections as would be an obstruc
companies carried for the government $1,200,tion 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
for private parties, in the last-named year, the the information it was proved that the projection
enormous sum of $1,050,000,000; and that the complained of was an oriel window of stonework, Adams Express Company alone receives and diswhich measured from the bottom to the top 11 ft.,
burses, in New York city, 14,000 packages daily, and projected over the foot-path 2 ft. 6 in., and that employing therefor, in connection with their genthe distance between the lowest part of the window
eral business, 918 horses, with the necessary numand the foot-path was 14 to 15 feet, and that such
ber of wagons."
Mr. Schouler says (Bailments, oriel window was not in the nature of a shop front,
316): “The American pioneer in that business is doorway, cornice or pilaster, and also that the land said to have journeyed in person, by steamboat and over which the window projected was to the extent
rail car, between New York and Boston, with all
his customers' valuables contained in a hand of 2 ft. 6 in. part of the public highway, being, in
satchel." 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
NOTES OF CASES. 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, 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. ing coal, where the mining is innocently done under