Open main menu

Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 2.djvu/255

This page needs to be proofread.



the pQbUc for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created." PeopUv, King^ 18 N. E. Rep. 345 (N. Y.).


TiON Butter. — A State statute prohibiting the sale of imitation butter, unless colored pink, having for its object the prevention of fraud on the public in the sale of provisions, is a valid and constitutional exercise of the police power of the State. Siaie v. Marshall abstracted in 38 Alb. L. J. 362 (N. H.}.

Compare Powell v. Penn, 127 U. S. 678, digested 2 Harv. L. Rev. 143, and Peopli V. Marx^ 99 N. Y. 377.

Constitutional Law — Privileges of CrnzENs.— The Maryland Act of 1884, c. 518, prohibits the use of vessels to buy oysters on the Chesapeake bay unless a license h obtained from the State therefor, conditioned upon a twelve, months' residence in the State, and the payment of a tonnage fee. Ifeld^ uncon- stitutional, as denying citizens of other States privileges enjoyed by those of Maryland. Booth v. Lloyd, 33 Fed. Rep. 593 (Md.).

Contempt of Court — Advertisements for Evidence. — A respondent in a divorce suit who mala fide placards about the village where his wife is living advertisements for evidence which are calculated to discredit her in the eyes of the public may be committed for contempt of court. But semble a bona fide attempt to procure evidence in a suit, even by an advertisement offering a reward, is not a contempt. Butler v. Butler, 13 P. D. 73 (Eng.).

Corporations — Contracts in Restraint of Trade. — A steamship com- pany, running vessels between New York and certain porta in Virginia, entered mto an agreement with the defendant that, in consideration of a gross sum and certain monthly payments to be continued through five years, he would not run a competing line. A stockholder filed a bill in equity to restrain the company from going on with the contract, and to recover all that had been paid under it, upon the ground that it was uUra znres, and against public policy, because a restraint on trade. I/eld, that the contract was neither ultra vires nor against policy. With regard to the latter point it was said that the modem tendency is no longer to uphold in its strictness the doctrine which formerly prevailed about agreen^ents in restraint of trade. This change is due to the enlargement of in- dustrial and commercial facilities, so that little is to be feared from such agree, ments between individuals; and even corporations should be permitted to protect themselves from dangerous rivalry. But when they go farther than self-protec- tion requires, and threaten the public good, then they should not be aided by the courts. Leslie v. Lorillard, 18 N. E. Rep. 363 (N. Y.).

Corporations — Voting Power of Pledgee of Stock. — The voting power incident to ownership of shares of stock in a corporation is not lost when they become the property of the corporation, but is in effect equally distributed among the individual shareholders. When, therefore, the directors of a corporation pledge its own stock to secure a loan, they may expressly confer on the pledgee the right to vote on the stock, if by so doing an additional consideration is secured enuring to the benefit of all the shareholders. Allen v. De Lagerberger^ 20 W*kly Law Bulletin, 368 (Superior Court of Cincinnati).

Deed — Shifting Use — After-born Children. — Land was conveyed by deed to *' Marion R. Mobley and the children she already has, and may here- after bear, by her husband." Held, the estate vested in the living grantees, subject to open and let in the after-born grantees. The living grantees "maybe regarded as trustees of a shifting use." Mellichamp v. Mellichamp, 5 S. E. R.

333 (S. C).

Duress. — The refusal of a bank to honor a depositor's checks, until the latter should release a claim against the banker, constitutes duress. Adams v. Schiffer 17 Pac R. 21 (Col.).

Duress — Financial Embarrassment. — A purchaser who has not caused the financial embarrassment of the seller, but takes it as an occasion to drive a hard bargain with the seller, does not exert duress. Id,

Evidence — « Comparison of Hands." — Submission of Writings to Jury. — Where certain signatures of a testator have been proved genuine, and witnesses have testified as to whether these signatures are in the same handwriting as the signatures in question, it is not* proper* to submit the signatures to the jury for their inspection and comparison, fuller v. Fox^ 7 S. E. Rep. 589 (N. C).