Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 5.djvu/309

RECENT CASES. 293 easement to a free and reasonable use of the street. Reining v. N. Y. L. & W. R.R. Co., 28 N. E. Rep. 640 (N. Y.). Real Property — Tenancy by Entirety — Effect of Divorce. — On the termination, by an absolute divorce, of a tenancy by entirety created by a con- veyance to husband and wife, the grantees hold as tenants in common without survivorship. Steltz v. Shreck, 28 N. E. Rep. 510 (N. Y.). Taxation — Electric Companies — Not Manufacturing Companies. — A company generating electricity and selling it to customers for power, heating, or illuminating purposes is not a manufacturing company and thus within an act exempting manufacturing companies from taxation. Com. v. Northern Elec- tric Light & Power Co., 22 Atl. Rep. 839 (Pa.). The analogy to gas companies is noted, and a distinction drawn between com- panies dealing in natural and in artificial gas. 89 N. Y. 409; 108 Pa. St. 111, cited. Tort — Infringement of Statute for Exemption of Debtor — Civil Action. — A statute in Indiana exempts from garnishment the wages, for more than one month, of any person with less than #200; with an added provision that the attempt of a creditor to evade the law by prosecuting claims against such person in another State, whether directly or through another party, shall be criminally punishable by fine. Held, that where a creditor violates the latter provision, he is civillv liable to the debtor thus deprived of his exemption. Kest- ler v. Kern, 28 N. 'E. Rep. 726 (Ind.). Trusts — 1'rior Equity — Purchase for Value. — B holding shares in trust for the jlaimiffs pledged them with the defendant for a private debt. The defendant had no notice of the trust. After learning of it he applied to the com- pany, which had been notified of the trust, to have the transfer registered. By the articles cf association, no transfer of stock could be made unless approved by the directors. Upon this ground, held, that the plaintiffs prior equity must pre- vail. The second claimant must be able to show a complete legal title, or at leas-t that all the formalities have been complied with, so that nothing more than a purely ministerial act remains to be done. Moore v. North Western Bank [1891] 2 Ch. 599. This case adopts the true test, and is plainly distinguishable from Dodds v. Hills, 2 Hem. & Mill. 424. In that case the company could not object to the transfer of the shares, and accordingly the pledgee immediately upon the transfer of the certificates to himself got a complete legal right — an irrevocable power of attorney which entitled him to demand absolutely the transfer to himself upon the books of the company. Here he got no such complete legal right, and the company could not approve the transfer without assisting in the fraud. Trusts — Prior Incumbrance — Representations of Trustee. — A, with a view to making a loan to the cestui, inquired of the trustee as to the incum- brances already upon the trust funds. The trustee mentioned certain incum- brances, but failed to mention others of which he had been notified, but which he did not at the moment recollect. A made the loan, relying upon the repre- sentations of the trustee. The security, owing to the prior incumbrance, of which A had not been notified, proved valueless. Held, that, in the absence of repre- sentations amounting to estoppel, A cannot make the trustee liable for his loss. Derry v. Peek (14 App. Cas. 337) decides that a person is not liable for mere negligent misrepresentations. A trustee owes no duty to the cestui to assist him in incumbering the trust fund. Low v. Bouverie [1891], 3 Ch. 82. Wills — Debenture Stock. — A bequest of all a testator's shares in a pub- lic company will not carry debenture stock. Bodman v. Bodman, 40 V. R. 60 (Eng.). Wills — Debt of Legatee to the Estate. — The testator gave property to his executors as trustees, to be converted into money, and he directed that after paying debts, etc., the trustees should pay certain shares of the residue to legatees named. The legatees owed to the testator debts barred by the Statute of Limita- tions. Held, that the trustees should deduct these debts from the shares to be paid to the legatees, although the residue comprised the proceeds of real estate as well as of personal property. In re Akerman [1891] 3 Ch. 212.