Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/307

RECENT CASES. 29 1 absolute promise by C to pay B's debt, which was the case in Williams v. Leper, One reason why the courts have shown a disposition to take out of the Statute of Frauds promises made upon a new consideration inuring to the promisor's benefit is probably that where there is a new trans- action, a bargain made and consideration given, there is less danger of the frauds which the statute was designed to prevent. But when the promise is one of suretyship, it is so plainly within the words of the statute that it cannot be taken out merely because it is not within the spirit. RECENT CASES. [These cases are selected from the current English and American decisions not yet regularly reported, for the purpose of giving the latest and most progressive work of the courts. No pains are spared in selecting all the cases, comparatively few in number, which disclose the general progress and tenden- cies of the law. When such cases are particularly suggestive, comments and references are added, if practicable.] Admiralty — Contributory Negligence — Division of Damages. — A longshoreman while loading a vessel was injured, partly through his own neg- ligence, partly through the negligence of the vessel. Held, in spite of his contributory negligence, he can recover for part of the damage. Courts of admi- ralty act upon " enlarged principles of justice, and are not bound by the positive boundaries of mere municipal law." This case is the first in which this exact point had been presented to the Supreme Court, but the doctrine of divided damages had already been extended by that court to claims other than those for damages to the vessels which were in fault in a collision. The Max Morris v. Curry, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 29. Bills and Notes — Anomalous Indorser. — An inland bill of exchange was indorsed by a third person before its delivery to give the bank the security of an additional name. The indorser intended to assume the liabilities of an in- dorser only, while the bank intended to hold him as a surety; but there was no agreement on the point. Held, that in the absence of agreement he was liable as an indorser only and must have notice, and what the bank intended was im- material. De Pauw v. Bank of Salem, 25 N. E. Rep. 705 (Ind.). Bills and Notes — Domiciled Note. — If a depositor makes a note payable at his bank and the bank pays it, the bank is entitled to set off the note in an action brought by the depositor for the balance due him ; but semble the bank is not liable to the depositor for a failure to pay such a note. Bedford Bank v. Acoam, 25 N. E. Rep. 713 (Ind.). Conflict of Laws — Power op Attorney. — Where an authority is given in a foreign country to an agent to transact business for his principal in other countries, it must be construed, in the absence of evidence of a contrary intention, according to the law of the place where the business is to be transacted. In re Brazilian Telegraph Co., 39 W. R. 65 (Eng.). Constitutional Law. — The term "grand jury" had a well-understood meaning when the declaration of rights in the Constitution of North Carolina was adopted, and one of its most essential features was that the concurrence of at least twelve of its members was necessary to the finding of an indictment. Therefore where the Constitution provides that a " criminal indictment must be found by a grand jury," an act of the Legislature making the concurrence of nine members sufficient is unconstitutional. State v. Barker, 12 S. E. Rep. 115 (N. C). Constitutional Law — Due Process of Law — Special Appearance. — Texas statutes provide that a special appearance by a non-resident defendant for the purpose of pleading to the jurisdiction is a voluntary appearance which brings defendant into court for all purposes. Held, the statutes are valid. They do not deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.