Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/452

432 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. The only Federal questions involved were the validity of the tax under the Four- teenth Amendment and under the interstate commerce clause. The discrimination in favor of domestic manufactures is hardly so arbitrary as to be judicially pronounced a denial of the equal protection of the laws. Whether the statute amounts to an uncon- stitutional regulation of commerce is a more difficult problem. The tax was not laid on the business of selling imported goods, as was the case in Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, but upon business of any description. That the amount of such a tax upon a legitimate subject is gauged with reference to non-taxable property, does not impair its validity. Home Insurance Co. v. New York, 134 U. S. 594. The effect of the ex- emption in the statute under consideration is unquestionably the promotion of domestic manufactures; but, so long as interstate commerce is not interfered with, this is a legitimate object. For example, manufacturing plants are sometimes exempted from taxation in order to induce factories to remove from localities where no such immunity is conferred. Although by these means interstate commerce is perhaps indirectly reduced in volume, apparently the validity of such laws has not for that reason been impeached. Upon the whole, therefore, the effect of the New York legislation upon interstate commerce is somewhat too remote to impair its constitutionaHty. Constitutional Law — Privileges and Immunities of Citizens. — A Ten- nessee statute, after providing for the incorporation of foreign corporations of certain kinds doing business within the State, provided that all property owned by such a cor- poration should be primarily liable for debts due to residents of the State. On post- ponement of the claim of a creditor, citizen of Ohio, held, that he was deprived of the privileges and immunities to which he was entitled by Article IV., § 2, of the Federal Constitution. Blake v. McClung, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 165. See Notes. Constitutional Law — Taxation — Special Assessments. — The village of Norwood, Ohio, laid a road through the plaintiff's premises. After paying plaintiff for the land taken, the town assessed that expense, together with the costs of the con- demnation proceedings, upon the plaintiff's land, under a provision in the State statute allowing such assessment upon the abutters by front foot. Held, that this assessment was unconstitutional, and its collection may be enjoined. Norwood v. Baker, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 187. Gray, Brewer, and Shiras, JJ.,' dissenting. This decision marks the final adoption by the United States Supreme Court of the New Jersey doctrine, that a special assessment levied under a rule which makes it possible that the assessment may exceed the benefit to the land in question is void. Slate V. Mayor of Newark, 37 N. J. Law, 416. The principle that a rule of assessment must not be arbitrary, and must have some relation to the benefits, is sound; but the soundness of the application of the principle in the present case is more doubtful. The legislature has the right to judge of benefits. Computation of them is difficult, and the legislature may well have thought a handy rule desirable. While the rule in question may have been somewhat "rule of thumb," it laid the burden on those who must have been to some extent benefited; the court could hardly say it was so devoid of reason as to be an improper use of the taxing power. Contract — Damages — Mistake in Transmission of Telegram. — A mes- sage was given by the plaintiff to the defendants, a telegraph company, for transmis- sion to his attorneys, which read: "Attach property for seven hundred ninety dol- lars;" as delivered it read: "Even hundred ninety dollars." The attorneys attached for the latter amount. In a suit for the loss caused thereby, held, that the defendants are liable for the remainder of the plaintiff's claim. Western U. T. Co. v. Beals, 76 N. W. Rep. 903 (Neb.). See Notes. Contracts — Consideration Valueless in Part. — A landlord made an oral contract with a tenant for the lease of certain saloon buildings. There was a collateral stipulation that the landlord should refrain from selling cigars upon his adjoining premises. By the local Statute of Frauds the lease was valid, but the collateral pro- vision was unenforceable. Held, that the whole contract is bad for failure of consid- eration. Higgins V. Gager, 47 S. W. Rep. 848 (Ark.). See Notes. Contracts — Void Conditions. — A clause in an insurance policy provided that no action thereon should be sustainable at law unless brought within twelve months after the occurrence of the loss. Held, that it is against public policy to allow parties to fix a time within which an action may be brought different from that set in the Statute of Limitations. Omaha Fire Ins. Co. v. Drennan, Tj N. W. Rep. 67 (Neb.). The same result has been previously reached in Nebraska. Miller v. State Ins. Co., 54 Neb. 121. Accord, French v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 5 McLean, 461. By the great weight of authority, however, the clause in the pri.icipal case is held to be valid. 2 Wood, Fire