Gambar halaman

special partner, but who, by reason of failure to com- well-known designation, conveyed as such, and by ply with the statute requiring the special partner's name would pass, although misdescribed in the statecapital to be paid in in cash, was in fact a general part- ment of the particular boundaries, or as to quantity, ner. Held, not to be a fraudulent statement, as the because the intent to convey such a tract of land is other partners then supposed him to be a special part- evident no such intent can be inferred by a general ner, and though his claim against the assets as such reference in addition to an accurate description by special partner would be postponed to those of other permanent boundaries capable of being ascertained. creditors, it was properly described as a liability as Therefore when the intent was to confine the grant they then understood it. Ib.

within a patent named the grantee cannot claim be3. What liabilities should be set down. - Debtors in yond the patent line. Judgment below affirmed. preparing their schedules should set down in the sched- Jones v. Smith. Opinion by Allen, J. ule of liabilities all the paper that they may be liable 2. Adverse possession: line fence.-A temporary dion, with proper explanations in regard to them. Ib. vision fence built off from the true line for conveni

4. Special partner: composition.-A special partner ence, through uncultivated land, held, not sufficient has no right to vote on the resolutions of composi- to found a claim by either of the adjoining owners of tion. Ib.

title up to the fence by adverse possession. Ib. PRIORITY.

[Decided April 2, 1878. Reported below, 3 Hun, 351.) Employee not entitled to, for time he does not work.

CONTEMPT. The claimant had been employed by the bankrupts for By attorney: what is not: order in supplementary the term of one year, but was discharged at the expi- proceedings: ownership of property.-In 1872 H., who ration of six months, and for a long time thereafter was entitled to a fund in the possession of the New was unable to procure employment. He was paid for York Chamberlain, assigned his interest and right in the time he actually worked. The register decided the same to A., in trust for certain purposes. A, subthat he was entitled to priority in the payment of the sequently transferred his trust to D., who accepted it. sum claimed as wages for the time he was unemployed. Subsequently, upon a judgment against H., M. obIleld, that the decision of the register was erroneous. tained an order in supplementary proceedings against U. S. Dist. Ct., N. D. New York. In re Pevear & La H., and also an order in the same proceedings forCroix, 17 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 461.

bidding the Chamberlain to transfer or interfere with RECEIVER.

any property belonging to H. in his hands "until May prove debt of his estate in bankruptcy.-A re

further order in the premises.” Subsequently a receiver of the property of a creditor of the bankrupt is

ceiver of the property of H. was appointed in the proan assignee of the debt due to such creditor and may

ceedings, and in the order appointing him, H. and prove it in the bankruptcy proceedings; but the proof

his servants, agents and attorneys, were restrained must be supported by the deposition required by Gen

from interfering with any property belonging to H. eral Order No. 34. The deposition may, in the first in

In the proceedings one R. appeared in form as attorney stance, be ex parte, as in Form No. 22. U. S. Dist. Ct.,

for H., but in reality to protect the rights of D., the S. D. New York. In re Mills, 17 Nat. Bankr. Reg.

trustee, and all these orders were kuown to all the par472.

ties named. Thereafter R. obtained an ex parte order of the court directing the Chamberlain to pay the fund

assigned by H. to D., the trustee. In this he did not COURT OF APPEALS ABSTRACT.

bring to the knowledge of the court the supplement

ary and other proceedings against H. The ChamberANIMALS.

lain paid the fund to the trustee. Held, (1) that the 1. Liability of owner of vicious dog: on what based.

Chamberlain was not liable for the payment to the --An action for injury from a vicious dog is based

trustee; and (2) tbat R. was not guilty of contempt of upon the keeping of such a dog, and if injury ensues

court in procuring the order; and (3) that the receiver the owner is liable. If negligence is an element of a

of H. had no interest in or right to the fund assigued cause of action at all, it is not so in the ordinary sense

to the trustee by H. Orders below reversed. People of that term, but consists in the act of keeping the

ex rel. Morris v. Randall. Opinion by Earl, J. dog with knowledge of his disposition. Judgment

[Decided April 23, 1878.] below affirmed. Lynch v. McNally. Opinion by

ESTOPPEL. Church, C. J.

1. When principal bound by representations of agent. 2. Contributory negligence no defense.-Contributory-B, a note broker, was the agent of plaintiff to sell cernegligence, as that term is generally understood, is not

tain notes made by him. Defendant applied to B to a defense in such an action. Ib.

purchase business paper. B sold him at twelve per 3. What is a defense.-To constitute a defense in cent discount the notes made by plaintiff, representing such an action it must be established that the person them to be business paper. lleld, that plaintiff was injured did some act from which it may be affirmed

bound by the representations of his agents and was that he brought the injury upon himself. Ib.

estopped from claiming that the notes were usurious. 4. Offering a dog at large candy.-A dog was loose

Judgment below affirmed. Ahern v. Goodspeed. Opinand plaintiff, who was not shown to have known his

ion by Folger, J. vicious qualities, offered him some candy, when he 2. Ratification of act done by agent before agency comsprang at her and bit her. Held, that the act of plain

menced.-A representation as to the character of one tiff did not constitute a defense to an action for the

of the notes was made by the broker before the note injury. Ib.

was in existence. Held, that while plaintiff was not [Decided April 16, 1878.]

originally bound by such representation, a subsequent BOUNDARIES.

ratification with a knowledge of the facts would bind 1. When deed governs and when riot : fixed line.

him. Ib. While au island or any other parcel of land having a

[Decided January 15, 1878.]


NEW YORK CITY. 1. Parol proof to fix meaning of writing admissible.

Removal from police force: conduct unbecoming an A contract of sale was expressed to be on the “usual

officer, what is not.-Relator was removed from the terms." Held, that parol proof was competent to

office of policeman of the city of New York, by the show what the usual terms were in such sales, and de

board of police, under the charge of “conduct unbefendants were bound by them whether they knew

coming an officer,” this being one of the offenses for what they were or not. Judgment below affirmed.

which, under Laws 1873, chap. 335, a policeman can be Lawrence v. Gallagher. Opinion by Earl, J.

removed. The specifications were that he was ap2. Sale of article to arrive: what contract not unlaw

pointed policeman contrary to law when he was more ful.-By the terms of a contract of sale to defendants

than 30 years of age, and that he had been appointed by plaintiffs of an article then on the ocean and to arrive, plaintiffs were to sell it for defendant and pay

after having resigned from the force without a vote by defendants the balance due after such sale, after de

yeas and nays contrary to the requirements of law.

Held, that these specifications had only reference to ducting the purchase-price. If there was a loss defend

relator's title to the office and not to his conduct while ants were to pay that. Held, not an unlawful contract. Ib.

ad officer, and did not authorize the removal. Judg[Decided April 23, 1878.)

ment below reversed. People ex rel. Clapp v. Board of

Police. Opinion by Andrews, J.

[Decided February 5, 1878, Reported below, 5 Hun, 1. Parties to: statutory construction : 2 R. S. 191, $ 152, 457.] etc.-The provision of 2 R. S. 191, $ 154, providing that

SERVICE. any other person than the mortgagor, who shall have

1. Proof of service of summons by plaintiff.-While executed an obligation or other evidence of debt, may

the statute (old Code, ss 133, 138) declares that the be made a party to the bill, has reference to the bill

summons shall be served by some person other than named in $ 152. Sections 152, 153 and 154 are in pur

the plaintiff, it does not in terms make him incompetent pose and effect parts of the same enactment. The

to prove admission of service. Order below affirmed. purpose is to confine all proceedings to recover a mort

White v. Bogart. Opinion by Allen, J. gage debt to one court. Judgment below affirmed.

2. Offer of judgment: irregularity. When an offer of Scofield v. Doscher. Opinion by Folger, J. 2. Authority from the court to sue must be proved.- entered, the failure to file an acceptance is an irregu

judgment is not accepted formally but a judgment is Where authority from the court to sue is necessary it

larity not affecting the validity of the judgment, and should be proved by plaintiff. There is no right to sue

the acceptance may be filed at any time thereafter until the court gives one, and defendant need not set

nunc pro tunc. it up as is the case with usury and statutes of limita

[Decided April 9, 1878.] tion. Ib.

STOLEN SECURITIES. [Decided February 12, 1878. Reported below, 10 Hun, 582.]

1. When purchaser of, protected.-The purchaser for NEGLIGENCE.

value of stolen negotiable bonds will be protected un1. When question for jury: icy railroad station plut-could be fairly and legitimately drawn that the pur

less the circumstances are such that an inference form. — In an action against a railroad company for

chase was made with a notice of a defective title ir injury received by a passenger by slipping on an icy

the seller, or in bad faith. It is not sufficient that a platform, held, that evidence that the surface of the platform was in a lumpy and uneven condition from

prudent man would be put upon inquiry nor that the the unequal packing of the snow thereupon, which

purchaser was negligent. Judgment below reversed condition was open to the observation of the com

Dutchess Co. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hatchfield. Opinion by pany's servants, was sufficient evidence of defendant's

Church, C. J.

2. Evidence to show intent admissible. - It was negligence to go to the jury. Held, also, that the fact that defendant provided servants, whose duty it was

shown in an action to recover stolen negotiable to clean the platform from snow, and that they neg

bonds purchased by defendant that he had before lected their duty, would not excuse defendant. Judg

purchased of the person from whom he purchased

these bonds a bond stolen at the same time. After ment below affirmed. Weston v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co. Opinion by Andrews, J.

stating as a witness the circumstances of the purchase 2. What is not contributory negligence. Held, also,

of that bond and the explanation made by the seller, that it was not contributory negligence for plaintiff to

he was asked this: “Were you satisfied with the exassume that defendant had done its duty and rendered

planation given by Mr. Kendrick of this other stolen the platform safe, and go upon the platform and walk

bond transaction ?" Held, that the question was cautiously along after he had found that it was slip

proper. Ib.

[Decided April 9, 1878.) 3. Duty of railroad companies as to keeping ice from

COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS. station platforms.-The court below charged that "the defendant was bound to be on the alert during cold

HE weather and see whether there was ice on the platform

May 211878: and remove it or make it safe by sanding it,” etc.; and Sherwood v. Agricultural Ins. Co., No. 18, order also that “the defendant was not bound to keep its plat- granting new trial affirmed, and judgment absolute for form in such a condition that it would have been im- plaintiff on stipulation; opinion by Rapallo, J. possible for any passenger to slip, but in such a condi- Merrill v. Agricultural Ins. Co., No. 174, judgment tion that persons using the ordinary care which people affirmed; opinion by Folger, J. - Dale v. Delaware, use when not apprised of danger, would not slip." L. & West'n R. R. Co., No. 176, judgment reversed Held correct. Ib.

and new trial granted; opinion by Rapallo, J. [Decided March 28, 1878.]

Goodwin v. Mass. Mutual L. Ins. Co., No. 189, judg

pery. Ib.

THW Ford, wing decisions were handed down Tuesday,

[ocr errors]

ment affirmed; opinion by Miller, J.

Grover v. RORER ON JUDICIAL SALES, SECOND EDITION. Morris, No. 143, judgment affirmed; opinion by An- A treatise on the law of judicial and executire sales. By David drews, J. Smith v. Bodine, No. 200, judgment

Rorer, of the Iowa Bar. Second Edition. Chicago :

Callaghan & Co., 1878. affirmed; opinion by Miller, J.- - Boyd v. De La

This is the second edition of a work which was Montagnie, No. 150, judgment affirmed; opinion by Church, C. J. Agate v. Sands, No. 173, judgment published in 1873, and which has become familiar to

very many members of the bar. It is upon a subject affirmed; opinion by Miller, J.-White v. Hoyt, No.

of great practical interest, and one upon which every 193, judgment affirmed; opinion by Allen, J.: Meyer v. Knickerbocker L. Ins. Co., No. 171, judg-edition is greatly enlarged and is re-arranged so as to

lawyer frequently needs assistance. The present ment affirmed; opinion by Folger, J.- Bliss v. Johnson, No. 182, judgment reversed and new trial granted; afford a more ready reference to its contents. Of opinion by Andrews, J.- People ex rel. Gilchrist v.

course there has been a very great advance in this deMurray, No. 398, order of General Term reversed and

partment of the law since 1873, and many decisions of

importance made. The author seems to have thorjudgment on verdict affirmed; opinion by Earl, J.Mott v. Consumers' Ice Co., No. 177, judgment re

oughly examined all these and to have incorporated versed and new trial granted; opinion by Allen, J.

the principles and rules established in them into his Sayles v. Sims, No. 196, judgment affirmed; opinion

work. The work, as enlarged, probably furnishes the by Church, C.J.-Wood v. Mayor, etc., of New York,

most full and comprehensive treatise extant upon the No. 156, judgment affirmed; opinion by Andrews, J.

various kinds and methods of transferring real and In re application of Department of Public Works personal property under judgments and decrees of

courts, and it ought to be in the hands of every law. of city of New York, No. 403, orders of General and

yer in active practice. It has an excellent index and Special Terms reversed and report of referee con

is well printed and bound. firmed, and an order entered directing the payment of the money to Grinnell, with costs to be paid by the

NOTES. city of New York; opinion by Earl, J. Haden v. Coleman, No. 199, judgment reversed and new trial

'HE London Law Journal introduces a lengthy regranted; opinion by Church, C. J.-- Whittlesey u.

view of one of Dr. Spear's recent articles on “ExDe Laney, No. 131, judgment affirmed; opinion by tradition,” with the following remarks: Allen, J. Ousby 0. Jones, No. 142, judgment

“ At a time when there is a prospect of this country affirmed; opinion by Folger, J.

Murdock v. Pros being involved in war with Russia, it is very satis

factory that our relations with the United States are pect Park and Coney Island R. R. Co., No. 187, judg

of a thoroughly friendly character. The good will of ment affirmed; opinion by Andrews, J.- Thomson the United States toward the mother country has of v. Sweet, No. 15642, judgment affirmed; opinion by

late been manifested in various ways; and amongst

the evidences we may cite the fair and temperate disMiller, J. Rohrschneider 1. Knickerbocker Life

cussion of the extradition question. We think that Ins. Co., No. 184, judgment affirmed; opinion by Earl, in the recent contention Lord Derby was on the whole J. Merrill v. Calkins, No. 202, judgment affirmed; right, and Mr. Fish was wrong; but there is much to opinion by Church, C. J.-Higgins v. Phænix Mutual | dicial impartiality with which the matter has been

be said on both sides, and we are impressed by the juLife Ins. Co., No. 208, judgment affirmed; opinion by debated in America. Dr. Spear is contributing a seAllen, J. Diossy v. Morgan, No. 212, judgment ries of learned and exhaustive articles to the ALBANY affirmed; opinion by Rapallo, J.-Booth v. Cleveland

LAW JOURNAL, and we are glad that the matter is being Rolling Mill Co., No. 213, judgment affirmed; opinion

so fully investigated. The questions that arise as to

the construction and application of the treaties and by Allen, J. Nichols v. Voorhis, No. 138, appeal the law of extradition are complex, and should be dismissed; opinion per Curiam.

definitely settled, because differences on such points are always fraught with the peril of international bick


At a meeting of the International Code Committee.

of America, held on the evening of the 16th inst., SLOANE ON LANDLORDS AND TENANTS.

at the residence of Judge Charles A. Peabody in Landlords and Tenants: A summary view of their legal

New York city, the following delegates were elected rights and duties, with special reference to the law of to the next annual conference of the Association for the State of New York. To which is added an appendix of forms. By Charles W. Sloane, of the New York

the Reform and Codification of the Laws of Nations, Bar. New York: Haven Bros., 1878.

to be held at Frankfort, August 20, 1878, with power to HIS handy little volume will prove of great practi- add to their number: Hon. John Welsh, Minister to

England; Hon. Bayard Taylor, Minister to Germany; the relations of landlord and tenant, as it states in a David Dudley Field, A. P. Sprague, Charles A. Peaclear and concise manuer all the details of that law as body, F. A. P. Barnard, Lieutenant-Governor William it exists in this State. Exclusive of the index, tables Dorsheimer, Judge George F. Comstock, F. R. Couof contents, etc., and forms, it contains but 97 small dert, Edward R. Bacon, Dr. J. P. Thompson, Dr. S. pages, but within that compass is included all the val- I. Prime, Dr. Samuel Osgood, Dr. Henry C. Potter, uable results of larger volumes. The statements of Dr. Charles Howard Malcolm, Dr. E. A. Washburn principle appear to be accurate, and they are so ex- and Howard Payson Wilds. pressed that even one unfamiliar with the technical terms of the law can readily understand them. For

This is the way an English law newspaper describes real estate owners or occupiers we know of nothing the sittings of one of the superior courts of its counas useful as this treatise, and members of the profes-try: "For the last month the sitting chamber judge sion will find it convenient to carry with them into

at the Bear Garden has been Mr. Justice F-d, who court to refresh their recollection of the law in the

really knocked off the work before him in a most ex

peditious manner. Since, Mr. Justice Slow-pace sits trial of cases involving the subjects to which it re- there, and monotony drags on its slow and weary lates.


ALL communications intended for publication in the

the fees and expenses of bankruptcy proceedings LAW JOURNAL should be addressed to the editor, and the were paid out of funds which, under the pre-existname of the writer should be given, though nöt necessa- ing laws, would have very generally been spent in rily for publication.

litigation. But the profession will not alone receive Communications on business matters should be ad

advantage from repeal. Vigilant creditors will dressed to the publishers.

derive advantage from their vigilance, and distinction can be made by the insolvent between debts of different degrees of merit. In fact we think every one, debtor and creditor alike, will be benefited by the repeal.

The Albany Law Journal.


do so.

ALBANY, JUNE 1, 1878.

The Court of Appcals of this State, in the case of

Sherwood v. Agricultural Insurance Co., decided on CURRENT TOPICS.

the 21st ult., an abstract of which appears in our THE House on Tuesday last concurred in the present issue, passes upon the question whether, un

der a condition in a fire insurance policy, rendering Senate amendment to the bill for the repeal of the bankrupt law, and unless a veto should be in- it void in case of a transfer of title, either by the terposed, which is very improbable, the law will go death of the insured creates such a change in title

act of the insured, or by operation of law, the out of existence on the 1st of September next. This

as to avoid the policy. The court holds that it does is a result which the greater portion of the people of the country have been anxious for for the past Co., 58 Barb. 325, adopts the same doctrine. The

The case of Lappin v. Charter Oak F. Ins. eight years, but the friends of the law, though weak numerically, have wielded a sufficient influ- principal case is distinguished by the court from ence to prevent a compliance, by the National Leg- bank v. Rockingham Ins. Co., 24 N. H. 550. In the

those of Wyman v. Wyman, 26 N. Y. 253, and Burislature, with the wishes of the majority. It was at one time doubtful whether the present Congress if the property insured should be alienated by sale

latter case the policy provided that it should be void would not follow the example of its predecessors, and fail to pass the bill, notwithstanding a very insured did not alienate the property, the decision

or otherwise, and the court held the death of the large majority in each house were in favor of it. But the friends of the bill have been active, and it turning upon the meaning of the word “alienation.” has not failed. The postponement of the time See, for an interesting article upon the subject, 4

Alb. L. J. 37, in which the decision in Lappin v. when the act is to go into effect as a concession

Charter Oak Insurance Co. is criticised. to a claim which was made by the friends of the existing law, that if it was repealed without notice, a very great number of unfortunate individuals, who were intending to take the benefit of the law, would

The bill amending the Code of Civil Procedure

In the be disappointed and ruined. Three months' time has not yet been signed by the Governor. will enable all who can have any claim to favor in Supplement issued with this number are given, this matter to take such action as they desire, and among others, acts relating to assessments for local we anticipate that the bankrupt courts will do more improvements in New York, coroners in New York, business during that period than they have ever

accidents on railroads, reduction of stock of cordone in the same time.

porations, payment of counsel employed by the State, trust companies, and certain other moneyed

corporations, the supply bill, and the Military Code We imagine that the repeal of this law will be of amendments. Up to the time of going to press, 372 considerable benefit to those of the profession en- bills have been signed. gaged in general practice. The incoming of the bankrupt law nearly destroyed the collection business; a debtor that could be made to pay only by

The discussion in the United States Senate upon the means of legal process being as a rule on the verge subject of admitting women to practice as attorneys of bankruptcy, and a suit against him liable to be in the Federal courts showed that there was a strong defeated by bankrupt proceedings. Then the law feeling in that body in favor of abolishing all sex made certain acts, such as the non-payment of nego- distinctions in this matter. The report of the comtiable paper, acts of bankruptcy, and debtors were mittee to which the bill for relieving certain legal discompelled to pay in cases where they would have abilities of women had been referred, reported that resisted under other circumstances. In these two no legislation was required in the matter, as no law ways the statute discouraged litigation, and it was existed forbidding women to practice. This is also injurious to the profession for the reason that thought by the friends of the measure to be simply

Vol. 17.- No. 22.

an evasion of the direct issue as, though there is no in Weed v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 16 Alb. L. statute directly forbidding the admission of females, J. 414, that under a condition in a policy making the courts do not admit them, and the United States it void if the assured should die by his own hand, Supreme Court has refused to entertain any applica- that the policy is avoided by suicide unless the tion for admission in behalf of a woman. The sit- mind of the insured at the time was so impaired that ration is this: There is no law to prevent a woman he did not understand the consequences of his from coming into the bar, so permissive legislation is action, and that death would ensue. See, also, Van not required. But the courts, notwithstanding this, Zandt v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 55 N. Y. 169; Mcwill not let her practice. So she is as badly off as if Clure v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co., id. 651. A similar the law expressly excluded her. There are probably doctrine was held by the Federal Supreme Court in not half a dozen women in the whole country who Charter Oak Life Ins. Co. v. Rodel, 16 Alb. L. J. would avail themselves of the privilege to practice 415, it being said that it is not every kind or degree if it was given them, and it is probable that they of insanity that will excuse the party taking his would be of very little advantage to the bar, so that own life so as to render the company liable. If the perhaps the course recommended by the committee deceased in the exercise of his reasoning faculties is the best one that could be taken. We understand formed a determination to take his life because he that women are allowed to practice in the States of preferred death to life, the company would be Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and North relieved. Carolina, in the Territories of Wyoming and Utah, and in the District of Columbia. The probabilities are that other States will accord her the same priv- the recent case of Taintor v. City of Worcester, holds

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in ilege, and the Federal courts cannot remain long that a city by accepting a statute which authorizes closed against her.

it to provide and maintain fire engines, reservoir and hydrants for the extinguishment of fires and build

ing works under it, does not enter into a contract NOTES OF CASES.

with or assume any liability to owners of property N Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Groom, decided to furnish means or water for the extinguishment of

[ocr errors]

Pennsylvania, a policy of insurance contained the will not be liable for a loss by fire occurring by provision that if the insured should die by suicide reason of the absence of water which it is able to it should be null and void. The court held that the furnish. In Atkinson v. Newcastle Water Works, L. word “suicide” could not properly be applied to R., 6 Ex. 404, an action was maintained against a the voluntary death of the insured while insane.

water company for not keeping pipes, in which fire The opinion states that the preponderance of plugs were fixed, charged with water at a certain decisions in England and this country supports pressure as required by its act of incorporation, the theory that the word “ suicide " is synony- whereby the plaintiff's property was destroyed, but mous with the expression “ death by one's own the decision was reversed on appeal. See L. R., hand,” but that the better and safer rule is the 2 Ex. D. 441. In Fisher v. City of Boston, 104 Mass. one adopted in the class of cases to which Mutual 87; 6 Am. Rep. 196, it is held that in the absence of Life Ins. Co. v. Terry, 15 Wall. 580, belongs. The express statute municipal corporations are not liable provision mentioned not being a covenant for the for personal injuries occasioned by reason of the performance of a duty under a mutual contract and negligence of the fire department in using or keeping hardly a condition, but a provision for the absolute in repair their fire apparatus. In Wheeler v. City of forfeiture of the rights of the insured upon the Cincinnati, 19 Ohio St. 19; 2 Am. Rep. 368, it is happening of a certain event, it was requisite that held that a city authorized by statute to establish a the fact upon which the forfeiture depended should fire department and procure engines, etc., necessary be clearly, strictly, and technically made out, and to extinguish fires, is not liable to an individual the party against whom it was sought to be enforced whose house has been burned for any defect in the was entitled to have a construction put upon it in his execution of such power, nor for a neglect of duty favor, because the words were not his, but those of

on the part of the fire department, or any of its the other party. Mayer v. Isaac, 6 M. & W. 612. officers. The court in that case says that the Where there is any ambiguity in an instrument of power of the city over the subject is that of a delethis character it must be taken most strongly gated quasi-sovereignty, which excludes responagainst the company which prepared it. Notman v. sibility to individuals for the neglect or non-feasance Anchor Ass. Co., 4 C. B. (N. S.) 481. The decision is of an officer or agent charged with the performance in harmony with the rule adopted by the Court of of duties. The case differs from that where a corAppeals of this State, and by the United States poration is charged by law with the performance of Supreme Court. But it is held by the former court

a duty purely ministerial in its character.” See,

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »