Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/157

RBCENT CASES. 137 Missouri compromise after he had already decided that the court had no jurisdiction over the case, — a kind of dictum never justifiable, highly in- judicious in the existing state of politics, and doubly unfortunate in view of the fact that for once in his life Taney was fundamentally mistaken. Curtis kept above the excitement ; the Chief Justice in his conscientious support of his own behefs doggedly allowed his opinions to carry him be- yond the case before him. Letters passed between the two in which Taney was decidedly crusty, Curtis always calm and dignified. Not long after this decision Curtis resigned from the bench, the small salary being insufficient for his needs. During the remainder of his life he was the leader of the Boston bar. In the winter of 1872-3 he gave a short course of lectures at the Harvard Law School. When President Johnson was impeached Curtis defended him and procured his acquittal, and after- wards when the President offered him the position of attorney-general he declined the office. Throughout his life honors had little attraction for him ; he gave himself calmly and disinterestedly to the higher pursuit of the law. RECENT CASES. Agency — Hiring Out Servants. — Defendants, having many workmen in their employ, including plaintiff, hired them out to a contractor engaged in repairing a build- ing. The latter took entire charge of them, but paid their wages to defendants, together with a bonus. Defendants later gratuitously loaned him some appliances to be used in the work. By reason of defects which defendants ought to have known about, but did not, plaintiff was injured. Held, that defendants are not liable. Gagnon V. Dana, 39 Atl. Rep. 982 (N. H.). There are several cases which hold that where a master temporarily puts his ser- vants entirely under the directions of an independent contractor, whether gratuitously or for hire, he ceases to be liable for their conduct, even though they continue to draw their wages from him. Murray v. Currie, L. R. 6 C. P. 24 ; Murphey v. Caralli, 3 H. & C. 462 ; Woody. Cobb, 13 Allen, 58. There is more doubt who is responsible where property is hired out with the servants which they are to manage. Laugher v. Pointer, 5 B. & C. 547. The general rule applied in the cases first cited is founded in good sense, and its application, as in the principal case, to release the former master from his duty to the servants to furnish safe appliances, is demanded by logic and justice. Agency — Parties to a Promissory Note. — A promissory note payable to the order of a bank was indorsed by the cashier in the form : " A. B., Cashier." Held, thdit the indorsee can maintain an action against the bank on the note. Arnold v. Swenson, 44 S. W. Rep. 870 (Tex., Civ. App.). In the indorsement or making of a bill or note by an agent, it is the general rule that the name of the principal shall appear. It must also be indicated that the agent acted in behalf of the principal. Rice v. Gove^ 22 Pick. 158. This rule arises from the negotiable character of bills and notes. They pass from hand to hand, and must not be ambiguous. The principal case illustrates an exception to this rule, and is, on grounds of expediency, settled law. By commercial understanding bank^re known to carry on business in the names of their cashiers. The cashier's name is in fact an alias for the bank. Bank of State of N. Y. v. Muskingum, etc. Bank, 29 N. Y. 619. It seems, however, that no decision has yet gone so far as to hold effectual a signature in the name of the cashier without some designation of his office, i Morse, Banks, §158. Agency — Respondeat Superior. — Held, that a public charitable hospital which does no business for profit is not liable for the negligence of its servants, provided it has used due care in their selection. Ward v. St. Vincenfs Hospital, 52 N. Y. Supp. 466 (Sup. Ct., Trial Term, Part Four). See Notes.