Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/197

REVIEWS. i8r payee, "Without further arrangement the plaintiff was credited with the amount, and bank A. was in turn credited by its correspondent bank B. Before the check was paid by bank C. on which it was drawn, bank A. became insolvent, its account with bank B. at the time being overdrawn. Held, as the plaintiff was credited with the deposit against which he might have drawn, the property in the check vested in bank A., and therefore a perfect title was conferred upon bank B. Ditch el al. v. IVestern Nat. Bk., 29 Atl. Rep. 72, 138 (Md.). It is submitted that the dissenting opinion is by far the better one. The indorse- ment on the check "for deposit to the credit of " the payee was notice to bank B. that bank A. held the check in trust for the purpose of collecting the proceeds and deposit- ing them to the credit of the plaintiff. Such an indorsement is not absolute, and does not pass the beneficial interest in the check till it is paid. Bank B. was simply in the position of a sub-trustee. The fact that the depositor is credited with the amount, and allowed to draw against it, is a mere gratuitous privilege, and not conclusive evidence that title passes absolutely. If the check had been dishonored, the plaintiff would have unquestionably been charged. Ames Cases on Trust, pp. 11, 17; Daniel on Neg. Instr. (4th ed.), § 340 a, el seq. Wills — Witnesses — Competency. — The husband of one legatee and the wife of another were attesting witnesses. The question was whether the statute, which declares that " any beneficial devise, legacy, or interest " to a subscribing witness is void, renders the legacies to the wife and husband of the subscribing witnesses void, and leaves the will good, or renders the whole will bad. Held, the whole will is bad. Fisher v. Spence, 37 N. E. Rep. 314 (111.). This is a case of first impression in this jurisdiction, and the matter is well dis- cussed. The court recognizes that there are two sides to the question, and prefers to adopt the Massachusetts view. Sullivan v. Sullivan, 106 Mass. 474. This view, of course, is obtainable by strict construction of the statute ; but the contrary doctrine, which obtains in New York and Maine (Jackson v. Wood, i Johns. 163 ; Winslow v. Kimball, 25 Me. 493), appeals to ones common sense to so great an extent that it seems odd a court, not bound by precedent, would refuse to adopt it. REVIEWS. A Treatise on the Law of Res Judicata, including the Doctrines OF Jurisdiction, Bar by Suit, and Lis Pendens. By Hukni Chand, M. A. London : William Clowes and Sons ; Edinburgh : William Green and Sons. 1894. A principal object of the author of this interesting treatise (who is Chief Judge of the City Court and member of the Legislative Council of Hyderabad, Deccan), is " to show the great advantage to the administra- tion of justice, of the knowledge of contemporary laws and decisions in other cjuntries." This object has been most faithfully and successfully carried out. An enormous mass of authority has been intelligently gathen d from the reports and from approved text-writers of England and the United States, as well as from the states of British India ; and the advantage thereby gained is surely no slight one. Four thousand cases are cited on this rather narrow branch of the law, of which more than half appear to be American cases. In order to effect his design of making the Indian and American cases known in each other's courts, the author has stated the facts jnore fully than is usual in books of the sort, and has given many well-chosen ex- tracts from the opinions of the courts. The result is a mass of material almost bewildering in amount. One realizes as never before the extent of sway of the English law. The House of Lords, Texas, and Allahabad jostle one another in the foot-notes, while Hindoo widows, the Shebait of