Open main menu

Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 2.djvu/198

This page needs to be proofread.

Harvard l,aw Review.

Publ!th«d Monthly, during the Acadennic Year, by Harvard Law Students.


Editorial Board,

George R. Nutter, .... Editor-in-Chief.

Everett V. Abbot, William F. Bacon,

Wilson G. Crosby, George P. Furber, Treasurer,

Charles Hudson, Charles M. Ludden,

Alfred E. McCOrdic, Edward T. Sanford,

Edward I. Smith, Samuel H. Smith, Joseph Walker.

"The decision of the Court of Appeal in Badeley v. Consolidated Banky 38 Ch. Div. 238, is or ought to be the last nail in the coffin of the old doctrine that participation in profits is anything more than evidence — not different in rank from any other evidence — that the par- taker is a partner. Sharing profits is evidence of partnership, and may be ample evidence. But where it occurs only as one term or incident, we are not to take it first by itself, and say that it raises a presumption of partnership, and that a partnership there must be unless this pre- sumption is specifically negatived by some other clause or circumstance. The transaction must be judged and regarded as a whole." 4 Law Quart. Rev. p. 482. __^^

We note an apparent error at p. 161 (2d edition) of Mr. Dicey's " Lectures on the Law of the Constitution." In speaking on the con- servatism of federalism he says : " The principle that legislation ought not to impair obligation of contracts has governed the whole course of American opinion," and states that had the English courts recognized the inviolability of the obligation of contracts in the same way as the American courts have done, the Irish Land Act, the Irish Church Act (1869), and the reformation of the Universities would have been consid- ered unconstitutional. Mr. Dicey seems to understand that there is a limitation of the sort referred to on the power of our federal government. That this is not the case appears from die language of the Constitution itself, and also from the following authorities : Buckner v. Street^ i Dillon (Circ. Ct.), 248; and Hepburn v. Griswold^ 8 Wall. 637, in which it is said : " But while the Constitution forbids the States to pass such laws (viz., laws impairing the obligation of contracts), it does not forbid Congress." See also 8 Am. L. Rev. pp. 194-196.

The number of students registered up to date in the Law School is 220. Of these, 27 are third year, 67 second year, 74 first year, and 52 special.

The new students are 105 in number, and come from the following States: Mass., 46; N. Y., 11; HI., 6; Penn., 5; Ohio, 4; Me., 3; Cal., 3; Ind., 3; Md., Ky., N. J., Wis., Conn., and Mich., 2 each; Tenn., W. Va., Vt, Del., La., R. L, W. T., and Mexico, i each. Seventy-four have college degrees : Harvard, 47 ; Mass. Inst Tech., Tufts, Amherst, and Yale, 3 each. One each from Univ. of Mich.,