Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 5.djvu/260

244 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. Carriers — Railroad — Refusal to accept Ticket. — Where the conductor of a railroad train returns to a passenger the wrong portion of a return-trip ticket, and another conductor on the return trip refuses to accept it after the mistake is explained to him, and ejects the passenger from the train, the railroad company is liable. Kan- sas City, M. &* B. R. Co. v. Riley, 9 So. Rep. 443 (Miss.). Contract — Construction — Agency — Ostensible Authority. — The di- rectors of a corporation appointed a committee to procure plans for the erection of a building, subject to their approval. The committee orally agreed with the builders that the contract should be awarded to the lowest bidder. A notice to bidders was then sent to the builders, which, besides setting forth the specifications, contained a clause stating that the committee reserved the right to "reject all bids. The directors knew the above facts, but made no effort to inform the builders that the committee had no authority to award the contract absolutely. The plaintiff's bid was the lowest, and he sues the corporation for breach of contract. Held, that the offer was that at first made by the committee, and not that modified by the clause in the notice to bidders, and that the corporation was bound by the terms of the contract, on the doctrine of ostensible authority. McNeil v. Boston Chamber of Commerce, 28 N. E. Rep. 245 (Mass.). Contract — Defence that Object Illegal. — A telegraph company received a message for transmission and accepted payment. In an action for statutory penalty incurred for non-delivery, the company cannot defend on the ground that the telegram related to an illegal transaction. Gray v. West. Union Tel. Co., 13 S. E. Rep. 562 (Ga.). Contracts — Party Wall — Date of Liability for Contributions. — A built a party wall on the boundary line between his land and that of B, under an agreement by which B engaged to pay one-half of the cost of building the wall whenever he should use it. B sold his premises and his right to use the wall to C. Held, that the sale of the right to use the wall was in itself a use of it, and that B became liable on the contract at once. Nalle v. Paghi, 16 S. W. Rep. 932 (Tex.). Constitutional Law — Admission of Women to the Bar. — Attorneys at law are not civil officers within article 7, paragraph 6, of the Constitution of Colorado, which provides that " no person except a qualified elector shall be elected or ap- pointed to any civil office in the State." Therefore, in the absence of any statutory or constitutional inhibition, women will be admitted to the bar on equal terms with men. In re Thomas, 27 Pac. Rep. 707 (Col.). Constitutional Law — Eminent Domain — Conflicting Uses. — A strip of land for a necessary town way can be taken from a school-house lot by county commis- sioners, when the use of the lot for school purposes, although considerably impeded, will not be entirely prevented. Easthampton v. County Commissioners of Hampshire, 28 N. E. Rep. 298 (Mass.). Constitutional Law — Eminent Domain — Private Corporations. — An act authorizing incorporated rural cemetery companies to take property on condemna- tion proceedings, to enlarge their cemeteries, is unconstitutional, in that it authorizes private corporations to exercise the power of eminent domain for private purposes. Board of Health of Township of Portage v. Van Hoesen, 49 N. W. Rep. 894 (Mich.). Constitutional Law — Interstate Commerce. — A law which requires every person, a citizen of the United States, doing business within a State, to pay a license- tax is unconstitutional as to citizens of other States. In re Spain et al., 47 Fed. Rep. 208. Constitutional Law — Interstate Commerce — Impairment of Obliga- tion. — Where a contract between an individual and a common carrier secured to the former peculiarly favorable freight-rates ; Held, that such an agreement was without effect at common law, a common carrier being bound to serve all alike ; and therefore the clause of the Interstate Commerce Act prohibiting such agreements is not unconstitutional, as it did not occasion any impairment of obligation, though the contract was in operation at the time the act went into effect. Fitzgerald v. Grand Trunk R. R. Co., 22 Atl. Rep. (Vt.) 76. Constitutional Law — Taxation — Interstate Commerce. — Since a State has the right to tax personal property within its jurisdiction even though it is