Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 5.djvu/58

42 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. price recites that it is given in part payment for rent, yet upon default of payment at maturity, the contract of purchase is not terminated, and the relation of landlord and tenant is not substituted for it. Quetermous v. Hatfield, 14 S. W. Rep. 1096 (Ark.). Real Property — Eminent Domain — Condemnation of Leasehold. — Where part of a tract of land subject to a lease is condemned for public use, the tenant's liability for rent is not affected thereby. Stubbings v. Village of Evanston, 26 N. E. Rep. 577 (111.). Real Property — Grants Unknown to Grantees. — A childless widower bought various pieces of land, and made mortgage loans with his own money, but had the deeds and notes run to his wife's relatives, whose agent he claimed to be, although they knew nothing of these transactions at the time. He kept the deeds unrecorded, and always paid taxes in the names of the grantees, expressing fre- quently his intention that the property should go to such grantees at his death. Held, in a suit brought by the heirs, that although the grantor had the rents during his life, the fact that the grantees after his death recorded said deeds, and claimed to own the land, was such ratification of the agency as to constitute" the delivery to him effectual to pass the legal title to them. Cook et al. v. Patrick et al., 26 N. E. Rep. 658 (111.). Real Property — Percolating Water — Negligence. — A gas company, in sinking a well, penetrated two strata in which water was percolating. In the lower stratum the water was salt ; in the upper, the water was fresh and fed the wells of the neighborhood. In consequence of the failure of the defendant's contractor to take suitable precautions, the water from the lower stratum rose and mingled with the water in the upper stratum, and spoiled the wells of the neighborhood. Held, that a well-owner could recover damages for the pollution of his well, and that the company was also liable for negligence in failing to take precautions necessary to prevent such an occurrence. Collins v. Chartiers Valley Gas Co., 21 Atl. Rep. 147 (Pa.). Taxation — National Banks — Dividends. — Act Cong. June 30, 1864, § 120, required all banks to make a sworn return of the dividends declared and of the taxes due thereon. Held, such return is conclusive as to the liability of the bank. It cannot avoid paying the tax by showing that, owing to the undiscovered embezzlement by its cashier, there were no earnings for the year, and that the dividends were, in fact, paid out of the capital. Central Nat. Bank v. United Slates, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 126. Torts — Arrest by Officer without a Warrant. — Held, that a breach of the peace was committed in the presence of an officer, when it was so near to him that he could hear what was said and the sound of blows, although it was too dark for him to see what was done. State v. McAfee, 12 S. E. Rep. 435 (N. C). Tort — Procuring Breach of Contract. — Plaintiffs made an agreement with W., whereby he sold, and agreed to deliver, to plaintiffs a certain crop of tobacco. Defendant, on account of ill-will which he bore to one of plaintiffs, ma- liciously, with intent to injure plaintiffs and to benefit himself, induced W. to break his contract with plaintiffs, and to sell the tobacco to defendant and his partner. Held, following the reasoning of Coleridge, J., in Lumley v. Gye, 2 El. & Bl. 216, that defendant was not liable, and that plaintiffs' only remedy was an action ex contractu against W. Also that an act lawful in itself cannot become actionable solelv because it was done maliciously. Chambers et al. v. Baldwin, 15 S. W. Rep. 57 (Ky.). Tort — Procuring Breach of Contract. — Appellants contracted with a certain actress, whereby she agreed to play at their theatre. Appellee maliciously, with intent to injure appellants, induced the actress to break her contract with appellants, and to play at his theatre. Held, following Chambers v. Baldwin, 15 S. W. Rep. 57, that appellee was not liable, and that, although there was a statute in Kentucky prohibiting the procuring of breaches of contracts by laborers, still that statute was not intended to include contracts for performances of dramatic artists. Boulier et al. v. Macauley, 15 S. W. Rep. 60 (Ky.). This case and that of Chambers v. Baldwin, supra, show the unwillingness of the courts of one of the jurisdictions of this country to follow the rule laid down by the majority of the court in Lumley v. Gye, 2 El. & Bl. 216.