Gambar halaman

cordingly, while Mulhall v. Fallon (1900) 176 Mass. 266, is usually cited to support holdings like that of the Minnesota court, it does not necessarily follow from the decision in that case that a nonresident alien should be allowed to sue under a compensatory act. Deni v. Penn. R. Co. (1897) 181 Pa. St. 525, holds against the nonresident alien. Brannigan v. Union Co. (1899) 93 Fed. 164, a decision by the United States Court for Colorado, holds with Pennsylvania; while Vetalora v. Perkins (1900) 101 Fed. 393 decided by the U. S. Circuit Court for Massachusetts, interpreting the Massachusetts statute as compensatory, allows the nonresident alien to sue. The question seems to be one of policy: Shall a person not liable to duties imposed by the Legislature receive benefits granted by it or shall a statute framed in general terms be restricted to persons in the state? Torts-ACTION FOR MALICIOUS Prosecution. Held, the defendant in a civil action, prosecuted maliciously and without probable cause, cannot maintain an action for such malicious prosecution unless there was, in the original action, some interference with the defendant's person or property by arrest, attachment or other provisional remedy. Paul v. Fargo (1903) 82 N. Y. Supp. 369. See Notes, p. 479. TKUSTS-LEGACIES CHARGED ON LANDS-STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. The plaintiff's intestate was a legatee under a will, and the plaintiff, as administrator, brought an action in equity to enforce a lien on the land of which the defendant was devisee, said land being charged with a lien for the amount of the legacies. The defense of the statute of limitations was interposed by the defendant, but overruled on the ground that he was an express trustee. On appeal, held, the defendant was not trustee of an express trust and hence the statute of limitations ran in his favor. Merton v. Obrien et al. (Wis. 1903) 94 N. W. 340.

By the acceptance of the devise the defendant became liable at law on a promise to pay the legacy, implied from the acceptance of the land on which it is a charge. Evans v. Foster (1891) 80 Wis. 509; Gridley v. Gridley (1861) 24 N. Y. 130. The case is, therefore, not one of those

technical and continuing trusts, which are not cognizable at law, but fall within the proper, peculiar and exclusive jurisdiction of equity to which the statute is no bar.” See Notes, p. 487. Trusts—PREFERENCE OF Cestur's Claim For Breach. H, owning one third of his deceased wife's estate absolutely, and two thirds in trust for her son, squandered more than half of the whole. The interest of the trustee in a parcel of land remaining was attached by his creditors, who had judgment. A bill was filed by the successor of H, as trustee, to declare a trust of the interest attached in favor of the cestui. Held, the latter had no lien by reason of the breach of trust, prior to that of the attaching creditors. Wales v. Sammis (la. 1903) 94 N. W. 840.

The case is supported by in re Estate of Fox (1883) 92 N. Y. 93, and is sound in principle. When trust property cannot be traced, the beneficiary's equitable right to indemnity gives him only the standing of a simple contract creditor. Kearnan v. Fitzsimon (1794) 3 Ridg. 1. Cases allowing preference to the cestui wherever trust funds have entered the trustee's estate, McLeod v. Evans (1886) 66 Wis. 401; Capital Nat. Bank v. Coldwater Nat. Bank (18 49 Neb. 786; Evangelical Synod v. Schoeneich (1898) 143 Mo. 652, seem to be based upon an unwarranted extension of the holding in Knatchbull v. Hallett (1879) L. R. 13 Ch. Div. 696, that where the trust fund can be traced into a larger fund forming part of a defaulting trustee's estate, the cestui is entitled to the amount of the trust fund in preference to the trustee's creditors. Such cases have in several instances been overruled. Silk Co. v. Flanders (1894) 87 Wis. 237; Lincoln Bank v. Morrison (Neb. 1902) 57 L. R. A. 885. Trusts—Public Charity-BENEFICIARIES - INDEFINITENESS. The plaintiff and others, whom he represented, as heirs of S., asked for a construction of a clause in the will of S., which contained a bequest in trust for

the benefit of the poor, giving to the trustee discretion in the selection of worthy objects of the charity. The claim was made that the bequest was invalid for uncertainty as to beneficiaries. Held, a purely charitable bequest. The poor” sufficiently designated a class. " Grant v. Saunders (Ia. 1903) 95 N. W. 411. See 3 COLUMBIA Law Review, 269. TRUSTS-SAVINGS BANKS-RELATION OF MANAGERS TO DEPOSITORS. The plaintiff, a depositor in the defendant savings-bank, brings a bill to restrain the defendant managers of said bank from dissolving the defend. ant corporation and distributing the assets, not including the good-will, and from persuading depositors to deposit their accounts in a trust company incorporated by such managers. Held, the defendant managers were trustees for the depositors and that their acts would be a breach of trust and would be restrained. Barrett v. Bloomfield Sav. Inst, et al. (N. J. 1903) 54 Atl. 543.

The New Jersey courts have intervened before, on the application of managers of savings-banks for direction, taking the same ground, namely, that such managers are trustees for the depositors. Stockton v. Bank (1880) 32 N. J. Eq. 163. This seems to be held generally. Foster v. Bank (1898) 88 Fed. 604; Marshall v. Bank (1889) 85 Va. 676 and is the holding in New York, Hun v. Cary (1880) 82 N. Y. 65, where it is also held that the relation of the bank to the depasitor is that of creditor to debtor, People v. Barker (1897) 154 N. Y. 128. The continuance of the injunction in the principal case would seem, therefore, to be a valid exercise of the courts' control over such fiduciaries, since there is here a plain breach of trust, inasmuch as the managers intend to dissolve the corporation for their own benefit and to convert the good-will, an enormous asset in a banking business, to their own use.



These volumes, thanks to the liberality of an enterprising publisher and the generosity of a painstaking editor, are the first fruits of the recent Centennial Celebration of Marshall's accession to the bench. The credit of suggesting the commemoration of this event as a notable landmark in the development of American constitutional law and jurisprudence seems to belong to Adolph Moses of the Chicago Bar. His suggestion was endorsed by the Bar Association of Illinois, and in due time it received the sanction of the American Bar Association, which body assumed charge of the celebration, thus insuring its success. A Committee of one member from each State was appointed to prepare an address to the Bench and Bar of the United States setting forth the reasons why the whole country should unite in commemorating the centennial of the installation of the greatest of American jurists and urging upon public bodies and associations the due observance of the day. Upon the recommendation of President McKinley impressive ceremonies were held under the auspices of Congress at the National Capitol. Elsewhere celebrations were held in thirty-seven States and Territories, and in a few States services were held at different places in the same State. In all, more than fifty orations on Marshall's life and services were delivered by prominent members of the Bar, Federal and State judges, eminent statesmen and scholars, making altogether the most extraordinary tribute, both as regards its extent and character ever paid to the memory of a jurist long since deceased. Through the labors of judge Díllon these addresses have been brought together and systematically arranged and illuminated with notes concerning the programmes of each celebration. The enterprise probably involved a financial sacrifice on the part of the publishers and entailed an expenditure of much time and energy by the editor, but with Judge Dillon it was a labor of love carrying its own exceeding great reward. The principal official addresses are, wherever practicable, given in full. They discuss Marshall's powers and doctrines from different points of view, each presenting something new, yet exhibiting a striking unanimity of opinion with regard to his place as a jurist and his services in the development of our Constitutional law. There is in fact not a note of dissent in this respect in any address from any quarter of the country. Among the half dozen most valuable addresses are, that of Professor Thayer, delivered at the Massachusetts celebration, that of Justice Gray before the Bar of Virginia, that of Senator Lodge before the Bar of Illinois, that of Wayne MacVeagh at the Washington celebration, that of Hampton L. Carson before the Ohio Bar, and that of

Judge Dillon before the Bar of New York. Besides these are the wellknown eulogies of Mr. Binney and Justice Story delivered in 1835, the address of Mr. Phelps before the American Bar Association in 1879, and those of Chief Justice Waite and Mr. Rawle in 1884 at the unveiling of the Marshall statue in Washington. There is also a table of cases and a full index.

A MANUAL OF MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE, INSANITY AND TOXICOLOGY. Third Edition, Revised. Henry C. Chapman, M. D. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders & Co.

1903. pp. 329. This little hand book contains the substance of a course of lectures delivered at the Jefferson Medical College, and can be relied upon to give a good general idea of the subjects considered. It makes no pretentions to be a complete Text Book or Reference Book, and is designed and adapted especially for the use of students, to whom this branch of study can only be made a small part of a crowded curriculum. The little book contains many valuable notes and lessons from the author's practical experience as Coroner's Physician, but could hardly be relied upon to give a complete or thorough exposition of many points necessary to a thorough understanding of any individual case. The information which it does offer may be relied upon as trustworthy as far as it goes, and its value to students desiring a general but not too explicit knowledge of this border-land of Law and Medicine is very great. Practitioners in either profession desiring comprehensive and unimpeachable authority would need to consult a larger volume.

THE BANKRUPTCY LAW ANNOTATED. Sidney Corning Eastman. Chicago: T. H. Flood & Co. 1903. pp. xxxix, 597.

The author states that this work “ does not claim to be a text book, but contains the features of an annotated statute and an index digest.” The work contains, therefore, no comment on the cases and makes no effort to reconcile conflicting decisions. More than onehalf of the book is given up to official forms, United States equity rules, former bankruptcy statutes, indices, and a valuable list of the judges, clerks and referees of the various bankruptcy courts, showing their respective jurisdictions. The indexing of the cases digested is not completely alphabetical and in some instances not even the first two letters are in alphabetical arrangement, the use of the list of cases thus being rendered inconvenient. The index digest feature of the work shows considerable haste in preparation. Thus, while the cases in re Scheld, 104 Fed. 870; in re Holden, 113 Fed. 144 in which the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holds that State exemptions of insurance policies are limited by Section 70, a, 5, and the case of in re Steele 98 Fed. 78, in the District Court, are given under Section 70, no mention is made at this point of Steele v. Buel 104 Fed. 968 in which the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed in re Steele thus being in direct conflict with the Ninth Circuit. Yet Steele v. Buel is twice cited (pp. 66 and 69) under Section 6a. The needless double citation of this case with numerous cases intervening and

the similar double citation under the same section of in re Tilden 91 Fed. 500 illustrate the danger of a method of digesting in which there is no arrangement according to jurisdiction, time or subject. This absence of method would compel the examination of more than ten pages of cases given under Section 6a to find those on any phase of the subject. The book has only temporary value.

A Text Book OF LEGAL MEDICINE AND ToxicoLOGY. Edited by Fred. Peterson, M. D., and Walter S. Haines, M. D. Two Vols. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders & Co. 1903. pp. 1500.

This work occupies a field of constantly increasing importance, both to the legal and medical profession, and the editors have been very successful in their efforts to supply the previous lack of a treatise upon legal medicine, which is sufficiently complete to be of practical value and at the same time compact enough to admit of rapid and easy reference. One is particularly well impressed by the admirable manner in which the great advantages obtained by the multiple authorship of men of material reputation in their special lines have been preserved without in any way impairing the logical sequence or the solidarity of the work as a whole. The general arrangement is admirable, and the divisions are so conveniently made as to render a very thorough knowledge of the best authority in any individual case a very simple and easy matter to either lawyer or physician. Of the subject matter there is very little to be said, because the editors have been peculiarly fortunate in securing the co-operation of men whose knowledge and experience place them at the very head of their profession, and who therefore may be relied upon to have furnished the very last word of science and of research upon the especial subject of which they treat. From the nature of the case practically the whole volume comes from the hands of physicians, but they for the most part are those who have had a wide and long experience in the court-room, and therefore the reading matter is found very unusually devoid of pure medical technicalities, and is therefore readily comprehensible to the lawyer and capable of being easily presented to an intelligent jury.

As a text and reference book for students of law this book should be very valuable, as representing the best and most recent exposition of this difficult subject of forensic medicine that has appeared in English. For practitioners in criminal law and to those in medicine who are called upon to give court testimony in any of its various forms, this volume is especially intended, and is extremely valuable. To all such its convenient size and very complete index make it very readily accessible, and the text is upon such very high authority that it may be generally accepted without fear of controversion. In a work of such general high standard it is difficult to select any portion preeminently above the remainder, but the chapters dealing with nervous disorders of various kinds, including insanity, stigmata of degeneration, feeblemindedness, etc., treat of those most intricate problems of legal responsibility in such an able way that they deserve especial mention. The short introduction upon expert evidence also ought to be read by every one who is liable to be called upon to give expert testimony in any capacity.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »