Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 5.djvu/224

208 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. on the policy brought before the end of the sixty days is not premature. Phenix Ins. Co. of Brooklyn v. Weeks, 26 Pac. Rep. 410 (Kan.). Municipal Corporations — Quarantine — Restraint of Trade. — In the absence of an epidemic showing an apparent necessity therefor, an ordinance pro- hibiting any one from bringing second-hand clothing into a town, or exposing it for sale therein, without furnishing proof to the mayor that it did not come from an in- fected district, is not a valid exercise of the charter power to establish and enforce quarantine regulations, but is an unreasonable restraint of trade. Town of Kosciusko v. Slomberg, 9 c So. Rep. 297 (Miss.). Negligence — Contributory — Doctrine of Davies v. Mann. — Plaintiff a boy of 14, while standing still on one railroad track to await the passage of a train on another, was struck by an engine. Held, it was fatal error to charge that if plaintiff was standing on the track, and was neither looking nor listening for the approach of a train, and therein failed to exercise the care due from one of his age, yet if the bell of the approaching engine was not rung, and such failure to ring directly caused the accident, plaintiff could recover. Dlauhi v. St. Louis, I. M. 6° S. Ky. Co., 16 S. W. Rep. 281 (Mo.). This case is squarely in conflict with Davies v. Mann, 10 M. & W. 546, as understood and followed in England. Negligence — Contributory — Trespassers. — The defendant knew that many people were in the habit of crossing its tracks, and going under its stationary cars in the car-yard. This knowledge alone does not render the defendant liable in damages for an injury caused by a movement of the cars in the yard, due to the negligence of the defendant's servants in handling cars at a distance from the yard. Central Ky. &> Banking Co. v. Ryles, 13 S. E. Rep. 584 (Ga.). Personal Property — Liens — Inconsistent Defences. — Where an adminis- trator was sued for goods claimed to belong to the partnership of which the intestate had been a member, — held, that he, the administrator, could not, in his defence, at once claim the goods as belonging to the estate of the intestate, and set up a lien on them in his own favor. Gardner v. Gilliham, 26 Pac. Rep. 220 (Ore.). Quasi-Contract — Voluntary Service. — The plaintiff, who had a home of his own, was requested by his father to leave it, and live with and care for him, the father, promising to will him his farm. The plaintiff complied. The father soon after- wards became insane, and therefore unable to make the will. Held, the plaintiff may recover on a quantum meruit against the administrator of the father's estate. Hudson v. Hudson, 13 S. E Rep. 583 (Ga.). This decision seems inconsistent with the rules of quasi-contracts, there being clearly no implied promise on the part of the father to compensate the plaintiff otherwise than by will. Osborne v. Guys Hospital, 2 Strange, 728, would seem to be in point. Clearly, the plaintiff in giving his services looked to a will alone for compensation. Real Property — Adverse Possession — Where one purchases, pays for, and receives possession of land under a parol contract of sale, the fact that he often de- mands a deed in accordance with the contract does not constitute such recognition of the vendor's title as will destroy the adverse character of his possession. Newsome v. Snoia, 8 So. Rep. 377 (Ala.). Real Property — Australian Land Transfer System. — The Victorian "Transfer of Land Statute" protects those who deal with a proprietor whose name is upon the register. A forged a transfer of land owned by the plaintiff, to a fictitious and non-existent grantee, procured the transfer to be registered, and then forged a mortgage in the name of the fictitious grantee to the defendant. In executing the mortgage, A purported to act as agent for the fictitious mortgagor. Held, that the defendant got no title. Purchasers must ascertain at their peril the existence and identity of the grantor. The statute protects them merely from infirmities of title. Gibbs v. Messer [1891], A. C. 248. Tort — Conspiracy — Malice — Interference with Trade. — On demur- rer. Plaintiff, a butcher, alleged (a) that defendants, who were dealers in beef cattle, maliciously agreed among themselves not to trade with him ; (b) that they maliciously persuaded another dealer not to trade with him. Held, that a civil action for conspiracy does not lie, except where defendants would have been liable separately; that plaintiff could not therefore recover on his first