Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/153

RECENT CASES. 12/ out of place here. The court is called upon to construe a solemn instru- ment, the form of which is prescribed by the legislature, so that there is even less reason for considering public policy than where the bond is given between private individuals. It will not do to say, as was done in State V. Copeland, supra, that the bond is merely exacted to obtain the liability of the sureties, as well as that of the principal, which would regu- larly fall on a fiduciary. The bond is an absolute undertaking, to be void on the happening of the conditions contained in it, and the court has no more power so to construe its nature away than it has to add a condition that it shall be void so long as due care is exercised by the obligor in the discharge of his duties. The law does not concern itself with the extent of the obligation a man chooses to assume, though in imposing a duty upon him it has regard for his capacity. Durfree on Official Bonds, § 197. How strictly the courts taking this view will abide by its logical consequences remains to be seen. In Bairchild v. Hedges, supra^ a disposition is shown to limit it, as was done in United States V. Thomas., 15 Wall. 537, to a liability like that of the common car- rier of freight. This, however, does not seem justifiable. Durfree on Official Bonds, § 199. For the four views that have been held on this vexed question, see Mechem on Public Officers, §§ 298 et seq. RECENT CASES. Bills and Notes — Indorsee after Maturity. — The defendant made a note payable to one C. C forged an exact reproduction of this note, and indorsed the forgery after maturity to a third party, to whom it was paid by the defendant in the belief that it was the genuine note. The original note was indorsed after this payment to the plaintiff, who now brings action. Held, that he took the note subject to the equities against C, and could not recover. Leach v. Funk, 66 N. W. Rep. 768 (la.). This case has no precedent. The court seems wrong in regarding these facts as giving rise to an equity attaching to the note and barring the plaintiff's right. The issue and collection of the forged instrument was an independent transaction, in which the defendant might well base a set-off as against C, but this is not an equity to be available against an innocent indorsee, even after maturity. Carriers — Sleeping Car Company — Liability for Baggage. — The plain- tiff, a passenger in a Wagner sleeping car, on her arrival at her destination, intrusted her hand baggage to the porter to carry to the waiting-room, which was about a hundred yards from the train. A sealskin cape having been lost during this removal, held x-xX. the sleeping car company is a common carrier of baggage so intrusted to its care, and is therefore liable to the plaintiff for this loss. Ross, J., dissenting. Voss v. Railroad, 43 N. E. Rep. 20 (Ind.). The decision of the majority seems clearly erroneous. The dissenting opinion takes the only tenable position on these facts ; namely, that while the sleeping car conipany's agreement includes assistance to the passenger in alighting, beyond that point the porter cannot bind the company to any liability, much less that of a common carrier. The porter was merely the servant of the passenger. Constitutional Law — Interpretation of Statutes — Legislative Powers. — An act of 1854 provided that vacancies in certain offices in Philadelphia should be filled by vote of^the citv councils until the next city election. Held, that an act of 1867, providing that the words "next city election " should be construed to mean the election at^ which a successor would have been elected if there had been no vacancy, was uncon- stitutional, as seeking to compel the courts to construe the previous act contrary to its meaning. Commonwealth ex rel. Roney v. IVarwick, Mayor, 33 Atl. Rep. 373 ( Pa.). See Notes. Constitutional Law — Interstate Commerce — Killing Game — Sale outside State. — Held, that the ownership of wild game within the limits of a State,