Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/204

l88 HARVARD LAW REVIEW.. a mortgage to secure the contract. Held, that the wife could enforce the contract by a bill to charge the mortgaged property with her support. Coleman v. Whitney etal.^ 20 Atl. Rep. 322 (Vt.). Contracts — Illegality — Public Policy. — Action upon a promissory note. The note was given by the defendant in payment for forty bushels of oats, bought by him at fifteen dollars per bushel. A part of the contract was that the vendor should within a year sell for the defendant eighty bushels of oats at fifteen dollars per bushel. Held, that this contract, though not a gambling contract, was yet void as against public policy. For it cannot be carried out without defrauding somebody. Hence the note was void. Merrill v. Packer, 45 N. W. Rep. 1076 (la.). Conversion — Unauthorized Sale of Stock. — The defendants held one hundred shares of stock subject to the plaintiff's order. On an order purporting to come from him, they sold one hundred shares ; but they had on hand during the whole transaction at least one hundred shares of that stock over and above all claims. The court held that the defendants were not bound to have on hand any particular certificate, and that therefore they were not guilty of conversion. Caswell v. Putnam^ 24 N. E. Rep. 287 (N. Y.). Corporations — Tax on Franchise. — A New York statute provides that all corporations, with certain exceptions, that do business within the State shall be subject to a tax upon its " corporate franchise " to the amount of a certain per cent, upon its capital stock. Held, that the tax is upon the privilege of being a corporation and not on the capital stock. It therefore is not rendered invalid because part of the capital stock is invested in United States bonds. Miller and Harland, JJ., dissenting. Home Ins. Co. of New York v. State of New York, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 593. Equity Jurisdiction — Assignment of Patents by Master. — The statutes of Massachusetts give authority to the court to assign choses in action, and therefore the court will decree that the master make and deliver an assignment of letters-patent if the defendant refuse to assign them, although the court has not possession of them. W. Allen and Field, J J., dissenting both on the right of the court to act in rem in such a case and on the power of the court to make any effectual assignment without at least the possession of the letters-patent. Wilson v. Fire Alarm Co., 24 N. E. Rep. 784 (Mass.). Equity Jurisdiction — Injunction of Criminal Proceedings — Sales in Original Packages. — Though it is a well-settled general rule of equity jurispru- dence that a court of equity never extends its jurisdiction to the enjoining of criminal proceedings, yet the rule has its exceptions. One of these is, where a threatened criminal proceeding is vexatious and involves a destruction or injury to property ; and, especially, under circumstances where the party injured would have no adequate remedy at law for restitution. On this ground the federal courts will issue injunctions, against proceedings by a State attorney, to prevent the enforcement by him of State laws prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors in the original packages in which they were imported, in violation of the interstate commerce clause of the federal constitu- tion. That such a proceeding is not a suit against a State within the nth Amend, of U. S. Const., see Tuchman v. Welch, 42 Fed. Rep. 548. M. Schandler Bottling Co. v. Welch, 42 Fed. Rep. 561. Evidence — Hearsay. — In ejectment against deceased's widow, she may intro- duce deceased's declaration that he had bought the land, not with a view to set up his title, but for the purpose of showing that his possession was adverse under the Statute of Limitations or otherwise. Mississippi County v. Vowles, 14 S. W. Rep. 282 (Mo.). Executors and Administrators — Reimbursement from Legatees after Distribution. — An executor handed over to K. the certificates for certain shares of stock not fully paid up, but no transfer was executed. After the estate was completely settled, the executor was compelled to pay calls on the stock standing in his name. Held, that the executor could recover from K. the amount paid. Notice of a debt prevents the executor from recovering under these circumstances; but knowledge that, since the shares were only partly paid up, a call might sometime in the future be made, was notice, not of a debt, but of a liability. In re Kershaw, 63 L. T. Rep. n. s. 203 (Eng.). This case goes farther than Jervis v. Wolferstan, L. R. 18 Eq. 18, which it