Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/356

340 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. cannot be enforced by injunction, although the tax may be legal. In re Pennsylvania Tel. Co,, 20 Atl. Rep. 846 (N. J.). Contracts — Advance Freight. — A cargo was shipped under a charter-party, providing that one-third freight should be advanced if required, less three per cent., etc. Held, the requirement could be made after the cargo, to the knowledge of all parties, was lost. This follows necessarily from the fact that advance freight cannot be recovered, and an unconditional agreement to pay it can be enforced, after loss of cargo. Smiih, Hill, &> Co. v. Pyman Bell &> Co., [1891] i Q. B. 42 (Eng.). Contracts — Illegality — Public Policy. — An assignment by a sheriff of fees yet to be earned will give the assignee no right to the fees as against the judgment creditors of the sheriff. It is against public policy, and void. Bowery Nat. Bank v. WUson, 25 N. E. Rep. 855 (N. Y.). Equity Jurisdiction — Fiduciary Relation — Factor and Principal. — A factor whose account was largely overdrawn deposited in a bank money which was the proceeds of property consigned to him for sale. Held, the money was in law due to the factor, but he holds such a fiduciary capacity that the principal has an equitable claim upon it. Therefore, if the bank received the money knowing of the claim of the principal, it could not retain it to set off against over-drafts by the factor on his own account, but is Uable to the principal for the whole amount on a bill in equity. Union Stock Nat. Bank v. Gillespie, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 118. Equity Jurisdiction — Right to Membership in a Political Organiza- tion. — The courts will not attempt to enforce the right of a person, duly elected thereto, to sit as a new member of a Democratic County Committee, a voluntary un- incorporated political association, whether it has a fund in its possession or not. It is quite unlike the case of one who has become a member of a social club for purposes of pleasure or profit, and has, thereby, become entitled to participate in the advantages of membership. Membership in a political organization can have no conceivable pecuniary value, for the court must assume that the objects of the association are merely to strengthen the party. McKane v. Committee, 25 N. E. Rep. 1057 (N. Y.). Husband and Wife — Divorce — Estoppel. — Where a wife abandons her husband to live in adultery with another man, whom she marries after learning that her husband has procured a divorce, then, although after her first husband's death the decree is, at her instance, adjudged void for want of jurisdiction, she is estopped, by her having accepted the benefits of such decree of divorce, from claiming any share in her first husband's estate as his widow. Arthur v. Israel, 25 Pac. Rep. 81 (Col.). Libel — Privileged Communication. — A bank sued its cashier on his bond for misappropriating its funds, and served a bill of particulars of the defalcation on the defendant's attorney in that action, which stated that the funds had been misap- propriated "by collusion with the teller." It also gave a similar statement to a repre- sentative of the sureties, at his request, but there was no other publication. Held, that although the statement in regard to the teller was made in the course of a judicial proceeding and in good faith, yet, as it did not tend to establish any fact relevant to the defendant's case, it was prima facie a libel. O'Brien and Earl, JJ., dissented. Moore, v. Manufacturers^ Bank, 25 N. E. Rep. 1048 (N. Y.). Malicious Prosecution — Probable Cause. — The conviction of the defendant in a justice's court is conclusive evidence of probable cause, though followed by an acquittal on appeal, Adams v. Bicknell, 25 N. E. Rep. 804 (Ind.). Master and Servant. — Where a boy of thirteen years is employed in a tinshop, and is allowed by his master to work a cutting-machine, making trinkets for his own amusement, and is injured while so doing, whether the boy had capacity to appre- ciate the danger is a question of fact for the jury in determining whether the master was negligent in allowing him to use the machine. Wynne v. Conklin, 12 S. E. Rep. 183 (Ga.). Negligence — Abstract of Title Co. — Liability. — An abstract company which prepares an abstract on the order of a vendor, delivers it to him, and warrants it to be a true and perfect abstract of the title, is liable for omissions to a vendee who completes his purchase in reliance on it. The company holds itself out as competent to do the work, and assumes the responsibility of discharging its duties in a skilfuJ and careful manner. Dickel v. Nashville Ahstrctct Co., 14 S. W. Rep. 896 (Term.).