Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/234

2 14 HARVARD LA W RE VIE W. kiss V. National Bank, 21 Wall. 354. The better view seems to be to determine whether the particular purchaser acted in good faith and not to establish a standard of care in such a case. The negotiability of such instruments is thus greatly pro- moted, which is desirable in the interests of commerce. Bills and Notes — Uncertainty in Amount. — A promissory note for a cer- tain sum provided for the payment of attorney's fees in case of suit at maturity on default. Held, that this provision renders the note uncertain in amount and so not negotiable. Eoads v, Wedb, 40 Atl. Rep. 128 (Me.). The better opinion seems contra, as well as the weight of authority. See 11 Harv. Law Rev. 61. Conflict of Laws — Non-resident — Garnishment. — A debt due a citizen of Alabama, and payable in Alabama, was garnisheed in a Tennessee court. Notice was served on the principal defendant by publication. He did not appear, and judg- ment went by default. Held, that the garnishee court had no jurisdiction over the debt, and its proceedings were void. Louisville &' Nash R. R. Co. v. Nash, 23 So. Rep. 825 (Ala.). It has been held that for the purpose of garnishment a State has the power to fix by statute the situs of a debt at the domicile of the debtor, although the creditor is a non-resident. Williams v. Ingersoll, 89 N. Y. 508 ; Bragg v. Gaynor, 85 Wis. 468. The principal case, in holding the situs is not affected by the enactment of statutes, has also the support of authority. ///. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 70 Miss. 344 ; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Shariit, 43 Kan. 375 ; I.ovejoy v. Albee, 33 Me. 414. The latter view com- mends itself to sound reason. There is nothing tangible in a debt to attach. The court can only gain jurisdiction over it through the parties. The creditor controls the debt. It is payable to him, and he may retain or assign it. It seems, therefore, that the court must ordinarily have jurisdiction over the creditor in order to exercise it over the debt, as the principal case holds. If, however, the court had controlled both the debtor and the place of payment, it would have had jurisdiction over the debt, for in that case the debt would have been entirely under its control. Constitutional Law — Corporations — Statute Validating Ultra Vires Contract. — Held, that a statute, validating an ultra vires contract made by a county, is not an infringement upon the judicial ]50wer and is not unconstitutional. Erskine V. Steele County, 37 Fed. Rep. 630 (Circ. Ct., N. Dak.). The enactment is valid in either of two lights. In the first place, it is held that, even in the case of a private corporation, an ultra vires contract may be legalized by a subsequent act of the legislature. White Water, etc. Co. v. Valette, 21 How. 414, 425 ; 2 Morawetz, Private Corporations, 2d ed., § 651. Such a statute does not usurp the functions of the judiciary ; but, as is said in the principal case, it gives to the con- tract the one element of vitality which it previously lacked, namelv, the assent of the sovereign. But see Reiser v. Wm. Tell Saving Fnnd Ass., 139 Pa. St. 137. In the second place, the decision under review may be supported as a valid exercise of the control possessed l)y the State over the funds of a municipal corporation. I Dillon, Municipal Corporations, § 62. Constitutional Law — Ex Post Facto Laws. — A New York statute provided that any one practising medicine after conviction of a felony should be guilty of a misdemeanor. Plaintiff in error was indicted for practising medicine after the enact- ment of the law, having been convicted of felony and punished before its passage. Held, that he can be punished under the statute ; the law is not in conflict with Art. I. sect. 10, of the Constitution of the United States, which provides that " No State shall . . . pass any . . . ex post facto law . . . ," as inflicting additional punishment for crime, laut is a valid exercise of the police power of the State. Hawker v. People of A'ew York, 170 U. S. 189. The distinction is here pointed out between a State law intended to create a punish- ment for past offences, and one intended to enact a test of fitness to carry on a profes- sion affecting the i^ublic welfare. The latter type of legislation is a valid and common exercise of the police power of the State. The law in question in the principal case seems clearly to fall within the scope of this power, and the decision is in line with previous decisions of the Supreme Court. Dent v. V--* Virginia, 129 U. S. 114; Gray v. Connecticut, 159 U. S. 74. Constitutional Law — Inheritance Tax. — The State of Illinois imposed an inheritance tax, which varied according to the amount of the legacy and according to the degree of relationship of the legatee. Held, that the tax does not conflict with that provision of the Federal Constitution which forbids the States to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws. Magoun v. Illinois Trust dr» Savings Bank, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594. See Notes, 12 Harv. Law Rev. 127.