DKATH. (Winow's ACTION FOR DAMAGES— FAIL URE OK HUSBAND то SUPPORT HER—KFKKCT.) TEXAS COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS.
In De Garcia v. San Antonia & A. P. Ry. Co., 77 Southwestern 275, it is held that a wife, who has not by her own acts forfeited the right to support by her husband, may re cover damages for his death, though he had not for a long time supported her. The court says that so long as she has not acted in a way to forfeit it, the wife is entitled to support at the hands of her husband, and a party wrongfully killing him cannot deprive her of damages by a plea that the husband had not been fulfilling the duties that he owed his wife. Railway r. Spicker, 6i Texas 427, 48 Am. Rep. 297, is cited as authority. EIGHT-HOUR LAW. (STATE CONTRACTS—CON STITUTIONALITY OF STATE LAW— LIBERTY OF CONTRACT.) UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
In Atkin v. State of Kansas, 24 Supreme Court Reporter 124, the provisions of the General Statutes of 1901 of Kansas, Sections 3827, 3828, making it a misdemeanor for any official or any contractor or sub-contractor with, or on account of, the State, a county or city, to require more than eight hours as a day's work from employés, or to pay less than the current rate of wages for such eight-hour day, are passed upon in the light of the guaranty of the I4th amendment to the Federal Constitution, securing liberty of contract. In sustaining the statute, the court says that no question as to the constitution ality of such an act interfering with the con tractual relations of private employers and employés is presented. Municipal corpora tions are mere political subdivisions of the State. 'Die street improvement which de fendant contracted to make "was one which the State, had it deemed proper, could have taken immediate charge of by its own agents. Instead of undertaking that work directly it invested one of its governmental agencies with power to care for it. Whether done by the State or one of its instrumentalities, the work was of a public and not of a private character. Being of a public character it
necessarily follows that the statute does not infringe the personal liberty of any one. It may be that the State in enacting the statute intended to give its sanction to an eighthour clay. The court has no occasion to consider the question of the propriety of such a limitation of working hours, for, whatever may have been the motives in the enactment of the statute, it can imagine no possible ground to dispute the power of the State declaring that no one contracting to work for it or for one of its municipal agencies should permit or require an en> ployé to labor in excess of eight hours each day. It cannot be deemed a part of the liberty of any contractor that he be allowed to do public work in any mode he may choose to adopt, without regard to the wishes of the State; nor is any employé en titled, as a part of his liberty, to perform labor for the State. If it be said that a statute like this one is mischievous in its tendencies, the answer is that the responsibility therefor rests upon the Legislature, and not upon the courts. Equally without any foundation is the proposition that the statute denies to the defendant or to his employés the equal pro tection of the law. It applies alike to all who do work on behalf of the State or of the municipal sub-divisions, and to those em ployed thereon. The fact that the work per formed by defendant's employés was not dangerous and that ten hours labor thereat would not be injurious is held to be imma terial. INJUNCTION. (COERCIVE REMEDY то COMPEL PRODUCTION OF WITNESS— PRESIDENT OF FOR EIGN CORPORATION.) UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OK AP PEALS, SEVENTH DISTRICT.
In Central Grain and Stock Exchange v. Board of .Trade, 125 Federal Reporter 463, the complainant, an Illinois corporation, sought to enjoin the defendant corporation, located in Delaware, from using certain market quotations. The Delaware corpora tion questioned the jurisdiction of its person on the ground that it had never transacted business within the State of Illinois. The
