Open main menu

Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 2.djvu/162

This page needs to be proofread.


144 HARVARD LAW REVIEW.

garine was sustained, because it was there claimed that there was such dan|[er to the health of the community from the use of improper ingredients as to justify absolute prohibition of the manufacture. A similar statute in New York was condemned in People v. Marx^ 99 N. Y. 377. People v. Gillson, 17 N. E. Rep. 343 (N. Y.).

Contributory Nbgligbncb — Damages. — Defendant obstructed plaintiffs drain, which the latter could have repaired for $25, but by delaying to repair the damages amounted to $100. Held^ tnat plaintiff could only recover $25. Lloyd V. Uoyd, 13 Atl. Rep. 6j8 (Vt).

This case is a curious illustration of the celebrated case of Davies v. Mann, 10 M. & W. 546.

Corporations -- •* Combination " — Partnership — Ultra Vires. — An agree- ment entered into by a number of corporations engaged in manufacturing, to select a committee composea of representatives from each corporation, and to turn over to such committee the entire control of the properties and machinerv of each corporation, the profits and losses to be shared in agreed proportions, and this arrangement to last for a specified time, is a contract of partnership.

A corporation has no implied power to enter into such a contract of partnership with other corporations, and unless this power is expressly conferred by the act under which the company is incorporated, such contract, whether made by the directors or by all the stockholders, is ultra vires, and void so far as unexecuted. Mallory v. Hananer OU'Works, 8 S. W. Rep. 396 (Tenn.).

This case is of great importance, offering, as it does, a method for the restraint, by existing judicial machinery, of the most serious form of those mysterious combinations known as " trusts," which'have been believed to be ** uncheckea by legal restraints or safeguards." This is accomplished without recourse to special legislation as has hitherto been deemed necessary. The doctrine of thb case goes further than the control of " trusts *' ; it deals a death-blow to the most dangerous class, — combi- nations between corporations.

The case, it is to be observed, does not proceed on the theory of restraining a conspiracy against the public welfare, but goes directly to the essence of the powers inherent in a corporation, and the limitations thereupon.

Equity Pleading — Lapse op Time — Demurrer. — Where a bill shows upon its face that plaintiff, by reason of lapse of time and his own laches, is not entitled to relief, the objection may be taken by demurrer. Horsford v. Gudger, tx Fed. Ren. 388 (N. C). j --^ :>:>

Whether such a doctrine is sound is open to serious doubt, as its application must deprive the plaintiff of his right to apply. Langdell on Equity Pleadings § 129-

Evidence — Book Entries. — Where a clerk testified that he weighed the wheat taken in at his employer's elevator, and set down the correct weight in the

    • scale-book," from which tickets were torn off and riven to the farmers, and

that from the stubs he correctly transcribed the weights into the day-book, the scale-book being lost, such day-book is admissible in evidence to prove the amount of such weight. But where the clerk testifies that, after weighing the grain and entering the weight in the scale-books, his course of business was to make out invoices from these stubs, and send copies daily to his employer at another place, who entered the same in his day-book, and the clerk does not testify that he en- tered the weights correctly or made a correct report thereof, the scale-books being lost, the employer's day-book is not admissible in evidence to prove the amount of the weights. Missouri Pac, Ry. Co, v. Johnson^ 7 S. W. Rep. 838 (Tex.).

Evidence — Criminal Law — Admissibility of former Crimes to show Motive. — The defendant was indicted for murder of her sister's husband by poisoning. It could be proved that there was an insurance upon his life of $2,000, payable to his wife, the defendant's sister ; that the sister died ; that the defendant was appointed beneficiary under the policy; and that soon aifterwards the husband died of poison. Evidence that the sister also was poisoned by the defendant was admitted, on the ground that the murder of both the sister and her husband were parts of one plan, the motive of which was to get the insurance. But it was held that evidence of the earlier crime could be admitted only after some proof of the plan has been offered. Just how much is necessary the court does not say, but makes the general statement that, while proof beyond a rea-