RECENT CASES. 287
[These cases are selected firom the current Baa^lish and American decisions not yet ropularly reported, for the purpose of giving the latest and most progressive work of the courts. No pains are spared In selecting ail the cases, comparatively few in number, which disclose the general prog, ress and tendencies of the law. When such cases are particularly suggestive, comments and refer- ences are added, if practicable.]
Bills and Notes — Liabiuty of Indorser of Non-Negotiable Note. — The defendant signed his name on the back of a non-negotiable note before delivery to the payee. The question arose whether he was affected by a stipula- tion in the note whereby indorsers waived presentation, protest, and notice. J/e/d, that he was not affected, because his liability was not that of an indorser, but of a surety or joint promisor, who is liable without notice of default by his principal. Poo/ v. Anderson^ i8N. £. Rep. 445 (Ind.).
In Indiana such a signature on the tMack of a negotiable note would make the signer liable, presumptively, as an indorser. The court, in this case, refused to apply the same rule to a non.negotiable note, because one cannot be an indorser, in a commercial sense, of non- negotiable paper. The question naturally arises, why does the nature of the contract depend upon negotiability? It would seem that the intention, in either case, is merely to become a surety. The courts are in inextricable confusion as to the liability of the "anomalous indorser,*' as he has been called. See x Ames, Bills and Notes, 269, note^ for a full collection of cases.
Common Carriers — Connecting Lines — Injuries to Passengers. — Defendant issued round-trip excursion tickets to a point on a connecting line. The train was, by contract between defendant and the connecting hne, taken over the connecting line by the latter*s engine and in charge of its employees. Held^ that employees were pro hoc vice defendant's employees, ancf that defendant was answerable in an action founded on their negligence on the connecting line. Washington v. Raleigh 6* G, R, Co., 7 S. E. Rep. 789 (N. C).
The doctrine of this case has been denied in Sprague v. Smith, 29 Vt. 421. See also Straiten v. iV. Y. & N, H. R,R,, 2 E. D. Smith, 184.
In accord with the principal case see Great IVesiern Ry. v. Blake, 7 H. & N. 987; Buxton V. North Eastern Ry, L. R. 3 Q. B. 549; Thomas y. Rhymney Ry,, L. R. 6 Q. B. 266.
In Massachusetts the question seems to be an open one. See Schopman v. B, & W, R,R,, 9 Gush. 24, 29.
Common Carriers — Goods Delayed by Strike. — A railroad company is not liable for damage caused by delayed freight, where the cause of the delay is an organized strike, which neither the railroad company nor the civil authorities can control. Haas v. Kansas City, F, S, <fe G. R, Co., 7 S. E. Rep. 629 (Ga.).
Constitutional Law — Chinese Exclusion Act of 1888. — The petitioner, a Chinese laborer, had in his possession a return certificate issued by the United Stales government. At the time that the Chinese exclusion act became a law — Oct. I, 1888 — he was on the high seas en route for Calif ornfa; and, on his arrival at San Francisco, was denied admittance to the United States. It was urged that the act was unconstitutional as depriving petitioner of a vested right, and as being an ex post facto law. Held, that the act applied to petitioner; that the return certificate was not a contract giving a vested right, but simply evidence to identify a person entitled to privileges provided for in our treaties with China ; and that the act was not an ex post facto law, because a Chinaman's departure from the country is not made, and is not in the nature of, an offence. In re Chae Chau Ping^ 36 Fed. Rep. 431 (Cal.).
Constitutional Law — Eminent Domain — Taking Property without Compensation. — The act of Congress of Aug. i, 1888, authorizes designated government officers to acquire for the United States, by condemnation, real estate for the erection of public buildings, and confers upon the United States Circuit and District Courts jurisdiction of the condemnation proceedings, but does not provide for compensation to the owner. Held, that the act is not in conflict with the clause of the Constitution of the United States declaring that private property