Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/132

Il6 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. have decided the other way. The same view of the question has been taken in Iowa, Louisiana, and Illinois (67 Iowa, 702 ; 22 La. An. 545 ; 103 U. S. 423), though the cases are not exactly in point. In Cahfornia (2 Cal. 165) the question was unaffected by usage or otherwise, and the court consistently held that the veto power was a legislative function, and the Governor could not exercise it after the Legislature adjourned. Thus the authorities are conflicting, and they naturally will be until the clause which the State Constitutions have so closely followed has been judicially interpreted by the Supreme Court. In giving to the President the power to veto, it was intended that every bill should be subjected to his deliberate consideration. That purpose is now defeated as there are so many bills presented to him during the last few days of a session. The evil has long been the subject of comment, and any safe relief will be welcome. If the usage of a century can be shown to be ill-founded and the more reasonable and broader view of Judge Nott should be followed by the Supreme Court, to which it is understood the principal case is appealed, it will insure more careful legislation and promote the dignity and indepen- dence of the Executive. RECENT CASES. Agency — Contract under Seal — Validity as a Simple Contract. — A member of a partnership having no authority to contract for the firm under seal, mort- gaged certain personal property of the firm and deeded it to mortgagee under seal, the seal being entirely unnecessary. Held, that though the instrument was invalid as a deed, it was operative as a simple contract. McNeal Pipe and Foundry Co. v. Woltman, 19 S. E. Rep. 109 (N. C). The authorities are in conflict upon this point. The doctrine of the case is law in New York and Pennsylvania. Worrall v. Miinn, 5 N. Y. 229 ; Alcorn's Executor v. Cook, loi Pa. St. 209. The contrary view is taken in Georgia and Maine. Pollard and Co. v. Gibbs, 55 Ga. 45 ; Wheeler v. Nevins, 34 Me. 54. It is submitted that the view taken in the principal case is the correct one. A seal has little of its former solemnity, and it seems more sound to reject it as surplusage where it is not essential to the validity of the instrument, but will render it void if not rejected. Its solemnity seems to be the only ground advanced for retaining it. Agency — Vice-Principal — Fellow-Servant. — Held, that an engineer of a city steam-roller, who has a flagman under his orders and dischargeable by him, in carelessly starting the roller without warning, is the flagman's fellow-servant, not his vice-principal. Hanna v. Granger, 28 Atl. Rep. 659 (R. I.). For comment on this case see 8 Harvard Law Review, 57. Assignment for Benefit of Creditors — Release — Effect. — A general assignment by insolvent debtors provided for payment in full of such creditors as should accept its terms and execute releases within sixty days of its date, and for distribution of the balance of the assets among the other creditors. Plaintiff, a creditor, under the impression that he had complied with the requirements, executed a release under seal. Subsequently, upon a contest by the creditors, it was adjudged that he had in fact not complied with the requirements of the assignments. Held, that the release was none the less effectual to defeat his right of action on the original debt even though it was ex|)ressed to be executed in consideration of his having priority over the general creditors. Claflin Co. v. Dacus, 59 Fed. Rep. 998. This is a hard case, but in a court of law no other result could have been reached. The release being under seal, the question of consideration becomes immaterial, and, no fraud being suggested, the debt is discharged absolutely. Possibly the plaintiff might be relieved in equity.