Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/207

RECENT CASES. IQI trade-mark, for it does not indicate by what persons the cigars were made, but merely that they were made by members of one of the local unions, and the right to use it depends entirely on such membership, and not on any reputation for skill in the manu- facture of cigars. The use of imitations cannot be enjoined, therefore, on that ground ; nor can it be prohibited on the ground that the imitations were calculated to make the public believe that the goods were the goods of another. Such an action has never been maintained except by one who was himself a manufacturer or dealer in the articles counterfeited. This action was brought by the members and officers of the " Union," and they cannot show any damage which is not too remote. Weener v. Brayton, 25 N. E. Rep. 46 (Mass.). The few cases previously decided on this point are here carefully discussed. TRUSts — Insolvency — Preferred Creditors. — The treasurer of the plain- tiff corporation loaned money to the Globe Plow-Works Co. The treasurer had no power to make such a loan, and this fact was known to the Plow-Works Co. when it received the money. The Plow-Works Co. used the money, and afterwards made an assignment, for the benefit of creditors, to the defendant. Beld, that the defendant held the money subject to the trust with which the treasurer of the plaintiff was charged, and that it would be deducted from the assets in the hands of the assignee before division was made among the creditors. Davenport Flow Co. v. Lamp,^^ N. W. Rep. 1049 (la-)- Trusts — Investment of Trust Funds. — A trustee invested one-quarter of the trust fund in Union Pacific stock, at 119. Later, he bought nearly as much more at 123. Held, that as the road had been constructed at great expense through a new country, it was heavily indebted, and its continued prosperity depended on circum- stances which could not be predicted, it was evident that the trustee took a consider- able risk, and therefore, although he acted in perfectly good faith and under advice, he was not justified in putting so large a proportion of the fund into such stock, and should be charged with the amount of the second investment. Appeal of Dickinson, 25 N. E. Rep. 99 (Mass.). Wills — Attestation. — A statute required wills to be attested " in the presence of" the testator. In this case the will was read over to the testatrix in the presence of the witnesses, and then at the wish of the testatrix the witnesses went into an adjoining room and signed it. The witnesses then returned with the will to the testatrix, and it was again read over to her, together with the names of the witnesses. She expressed her approval, and asked one of the witnesses if they (the witnesses present) had signed it, and was told that they had, and the signatures were shown to her. The room in which the witnesses signed was adjoining that of the testatrix, and the door was open, but it was impossible for the testatrix, from where she lay in bed, to see the act of signing. Held, that the statute had been complied with. Cook v. Winchester, 46 N. W. Rep. 106 (Mich.). Wills — Construction — Perpetuities. — An estate was devised to executors in trust to divide the net income equally among the three daughters of the testatrix, and at the end of ten years to distribute the principal among them in the same propor- tion. There were no words of survivorship and no provision for the death of a bene- ficiary. Held, that the estate vested in the daughters at the death of the testatrix, and so the devise was not in violation of the New York statute against perpetuities, which declares that the power of alienation shall not be suspended for more than two lives in being. Gray, J., concurred only in the result ; Earl, Peckham, and O'Brien, JJ., dissent. Hillyers. Vandewater, 24 N. E. Rep. 999 (N. Y.). REVIEWS. An Historical Sketch of the Equitable Jurisdiction of the Court OF Chancery. Being the Yorke Prize Essay of the University of Cam- bridge for 1889. By D. M. Kerly. University Press, Cambridge, 1890. 8vo. Pages xiv and 295. In a prize essay, covering so vast a field as the jurisdiction of the Court