Notes of Recent Cases. PUBLIC OFFICE. (PROPERTY RIGHTS THEREIN — LEGISLATIVE CONTROL.) NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT.
The case of Mial v. Ellington, 46 South eastern Reporter 961, is notable in that the court therein overrules the doctrine which has always obtained in that State, that an officer appointed for a definite time to a pub lic office has a vested property interest there in or contract right thereto, of which the Legislature cannot deprive him. This doc trine was first announced in the case of Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N. C. i, 25 Am. Dec. 679, and has been many times reaffirmed in subsequent cases. It is stated in the opinion that North Carolina is the only State in the Union where such a doctrine has been up held, and the majority opinion cites many cases, both State and Federal, and text-books where this doctrine is expressly repudiated. Chief Justice Clark in his concurring opin ion states, "The court that decided Hoke v. Henderson did not deem themselves infalli ble, for they overruled divers of their own opinions as erroneous, and succeeding courts have overruled other opinions of that court. There is no peculiar sacredness attached to Hoke v. Henderson. No other court what ever, anywhere or at any time, has followed it as authority. All have concurred in dis regarding it, and not a few have sharply crit icized it, a few of which criticisms have been collected. See 127 N. C. 252, 253, 37 S. E. 263." There are dissenting opinions by Judges Montgomery and Douglas. The de cision seems to be one of considerable politi cal importance, several unsuccessful attempts having been made in the Legislature to se cure a change in the doctrine. RAILROADS. (INTERSTATE COMMERCE— AUTOMATIC COUPLER — LOCOMOTIVE TENDER — NEGLIGENCE Ptr Se.) DELAWARE SUPREME COURT.
In Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. г: Winkler, 56 Atlantic Reporter 112, a locomotive tend er is held to be a car within the act of Con gress, March 2, 1893, c. 196 sec. 2, 27 St. 53, i U. S. Сотр. St. 1901, p. 3174, requiring
443
cars used in interstate commerce to be equipped with automatic couplers. The point is not discussed. It is also held that a violation of the act by a carrier constitutes negligence per sc, in view of the provision that the risk is not assumed by the em ployés continuing in the company's service. REMOVAL OF CAUSE. (DISTRICT TO WHICH CAUSE MAY BE REMOVED — CONFLICTING JURIS DICTIONS.) UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN.
In Hyde v. Victoria Land Company, 125 Federal Reporter 970, it is held that where, by reason of the subsequent organization of new counties after the establishment of Fed eral judicial districts in the State, one of the counties is found in two Federal districts, a suit originating in the State court of such county and removable to the Federal court, may be removed to either Federal district without regard to the district in which the county seat is iocated. The decision turns on the Act of August 3, 1888, c. 866, sec. 3, designating the court to take jurisdiction "as the Circuit Court to be held in the district where such suit is pending." This means the district within the territorial limits of which the suit was pend ing in the State court. And the suit brought in the Circuit Court of the county was pend ing in the county as a territorial whole, and not alone at the county seat, or in any sep arate portion, so that it was thus pending in the territorial limits of both Federal dis tricts. As that is the only judicial require ment, no other test can be imposed, and the two districts so embracing the county have concurrent jurisdiction. Knowlton v. Con gress and Empire Spring Company, 13 Blatchf. 170. Fed. Cas. 7902, is cited, but not on the precise point. SALESMAN. (ADULTEROUS CONDUCT—DISCHARGE FROM EMPLOYMENT.) ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT.
In Gould v. Magnolia Metal Company, 69 Northeastern Reporter 896, the plaintiff
