Open main menu

Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 2.djvu/404

This page needs to be proofread.


386 HAR VARD LA W RE VIB W.

RECENT CASES.

[Thes« cases are selected from the current Barlish and American decisions not yet regnlarly reported, for the purpose of %isin% the latest andmost prog^ressive work of the courts. No pains are spared ir. ►electinir all 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 practicahle.]

Banks and Banking — Nature of Savings-Bank. — A savings-bank in Massachusetts is an incorporated agency for receiving the moneys of depositors in small or moderate amounts and investing them merely for the use and benefit of the depositors. The bank assumes no obligation to repay to any depositor the full amount of his deposit, and, in case of loss from an investment carefully and lawfully made, it must be borne pro rata by the depositors. Lewis v. Lynn Inst, fir Savings, 19 N. E. Rep. 365 (Mass.).

Common Carriers — Maucious Negugence of Employes — Exemplary Damages. — A railway company is liable in exemplary damages lor the mali- cious or reckless negligence of its servanti^ in the couise of their employment, although such neglif^ence be not authorized or approved by the company. Quinn v. South Carolina Ry, Co., 7 S. E. Rep. 614 (S. C).

Common Carriers — Railway Ticket — Separation of Coupon. — Where the coupon of a railway ticket, perforated for the purpose of separation, and con- ditioned to be void if detached, became separated through no fault of the passen- ger, it was held that this separation was not such a detachment as would work forfeiture of the contract. Wightman v. Chicago <fc N, IV, Ry, Co, 40 N. W. Rep. 689 (WU.).

Conflict of Laws — Public Poucy of a State — Assignments Prefer- ring Creditors. — A statute of S. C. provides that assignments preferring certain creditors shall be void. Such an assignment was executed in N. Y. by a citizen of N. Y. conveying personal property in S. C. l/eld, that as such assignment was contrary to the public policy of the State, it was void in S. C, though by the law of N. Y. such preference is not only permitted but required, and though none of the creditors attaching it reside in S. C. Sheldon v. Blanvelt, 7 S. E. Rep. 595 (S. C).

Constitutional Law — Interstate Commerce. — Transportation by con- tinuous carriage, from a point in one State over connecting lines which pass through another State back to a point in the original State, and one of which connecting lines lies wholly in such other State, is interstate commerce within the meaning of the Constitution of the U. S. Stemberger v. Cape Fear & Y, V. Ry.Co., 7 S. E. Rep. 836 (S. C).

Constitutional Law — Tonnage Duty — Oyster Dredging. — A Mary- land statute imposed a tax of three dollars per ton upon all vesseb employed in dredging for oysters in the State waters. Held^ that this was not a tonnage duty, but a lawful compensation demanded by the State, as the proprietor of the oyster beds, for the privilege of taking oysters; and that it was but reasonable that this cr>mpen8ation should be rated according to the size of the vessel used. Dize V. Lioyd ei al., 36 Fed. Rep. 651 (Md.).

Criminal I-aw — Assault — Husband and Wife — Venereal Disease. — A husband who, being aware that he has a venereal disease, has con- nection with bis wife who is ignorant of his condition, and communicates the disease to her, cannot be convicted under a statute of <*an assault occasion- ing actual bodily harm." Reg, v. Clarence (Cr. Cas. Res.), 59 L. T. Rep. N. s. 780 (Enji.).

Eight judges, for one reason or another, agreed in the decision; four judges dissented. Seven opinions were delivered. The principal propositions advanced by various of the majority were as follows: First, that there can be no assault by means of infection; second, that the concealment by the husband of his condition was not such fraud as vitiated the wife's consent; and third, that if fraud in question could vitiate the consent to the contamination, it would also vitiaie iiie consent a«i 10 the intercourse, these not being separauie (Hegarty v. Shine^ 14 Cox C. C. 124, at 145), and the result would be that the husband would be guiliy