Open main menu

Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 1.djvu/117

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

clear opinion, that the above statute was an attempt by a State to regulate interstate commerce, and therefore unconstitutional, since Congress alone has the right to legislate on interstate commerce. The provision in question amounts to laying a tax on every order for goods obtain by a drummer. If States should be allowed to pass such laws it would cripple commerce.

Waite, C. J., Field and Gray, JJ., dissented. The dissenting view was that the act in question had nothing to do with interstate commerce, inasmuch as the tax was simply imposed on a business carried on primarily within the State, its interstate character being accidental and immaterial for the purposes of the tax.

A similar statute in Maryland was decided unconstitutional for the same reasons. Corson v. Maryland, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 655.

TelegramLimit of Liability. — A limitation of liability for telegraphic messages sent at night is invalid, so far as damage caused by the company’s negligence is concerned, even though the company offers to insure all loss upon prepayment of a premium of one per cent. on the agreed amount of risk. Marr v. W. U. Tel. Co. 3 S.-W. Rep. (Tenn.) 497. See Grinnell v. W. U. Tel. Co. 113 Mass. 299.

TroverWhat is Conversion. — A and B purchase the growing crops of grass on two adjoining pieces of land, the line between not being marked. C, A’s servant, while cutting A’s grass, in ignorance of the boundary, cut part of the grass sold to B; C left the grass as it was cut. It was subsequently removed by other servants of A. Held, C was liable to B for a conversion. Donahue v. Shippee, 8 Atl. Rep. (R. I.) 541. Admitting that C’s act was a dealing with property in assertion of title in another than the owner, it is, to say the least, difficult to see how C’s act was anything more than a changing of realty into personalty, — a trespass to realty. If he had by the same act removed the grass, he would not have been guilty of larceny at common law.




REVIEWS.

Commentaries on the Law of Contracts. By Joel Prentiss Bishop, LL.D. Chicago: T. H. Flood & Co. 8vo. 780 p.

This book bears testimony on every page that the author gave to its preparation that painstaking investigation which is so characteristic of all his publications. The author has attempted to cover the entire subject of contracts in a volume of six hundred pages. We think the general feeling will be that the profession has lost in consequence of too great condensation.

Mr. Bishop has the great merit of not being led astray by fictions. Chapter VIII., dealing with “Contracts created by Law,” affords a good illustration of this. And in pointing out, in § 908, that there is no propriety in speaking of an infant being liable, on his express contract, to pay for necessaries, when in fact he is required to pay, not the contract price, but the value of the necessaries, the author shows the same disregard for the fictions of writers that he does for those of the law.

The book will be found exceedingly useful in practice, and should be added to the library of every practising lawyer.

W. A. K.


The Law of Private Corporations. By Victor Morawetz. Second edition. Boston: Little, Brown, & Co. 8vo. v. and 1102 pages.

This deservedly successful book now appears in two volumes. From an artistic point of view, as its author would doubtless be the first to