Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/179

RECENT CASES. I5I and case systems of teaching law. The consensus of opinion seemed to be that the case method was gaining ground, and that books of cases with some independent matter, hke those edited by Prof J. B. Thayer of Harvard were, perhaps, best adapted to the use of reasonably mature and able students. An interesting letter was read, describing a Legal Dispensary con- ducted by the Law School of the University of Pennsylvania, designed to afford students some practical experience in dealing with actual cases. It may be noted in passing that since that time a similar experiment has been attempted by Harvard law students with somewhat profitable results. The paper read by Charles C. Allen, of Missouri, on " Injunction and Organized Labor," an examination of the jurisdiction of courts of equity in cases of civil disturbance like the Chicago railway riots of last year, evoked the most elaborate discussion of the meeting. Perhaps an idea of the attitude of the profession generally upon this subject may be gained by noting that over three-fourths of those who took part in the argument disagreed with Mr. Allen, who thought an injunction a miscon- ceived and unadvisable remedy under such circumstances. Both from a legil and a political point of view, the full text of the discussion con- tained in the report is well worth reading. The other published proceedings of the Association, while interesting, need no special mention except the rather startling result of an investi- gation conducted by Mr. Frank C. Smith, of New York, which showed that one-half of all the points of law decided in the American courts of last resort in 1893 were points of procedure not involving the merits of the case at issue. Discouraging to relate, the code States make a worse showing than those that have retained the common-law practice. The task of reforming legal procedure seems truly Sisyphean. RECENT CASES. Agency — Employment OF AN Attorney by Collecting Agency — Compen- sation. — Defendant placed a draft in the hands of a collecting agency for collection, and the agency employed plaintiff, an attorney in the city where the debtor lived, to collect and remit. Plaintiff seeks to recover for his services from defendant. Held, collecting agency acted as principal in the transaction and not as mere agent, and so plaintiff has no claim against defendant. Dale v. Hepburn, 32 N. Y. Supp. 269. This case follows the settled law in New York and the U. S. Supreme Court. Hoover v. Greetibaum, 61 N. Y. ^fi^y Hoover v. Wise, 91 U. S. 308. In some jurisdic- tions the courts hold that where paper is to be collected at a distance, there is an im- plied authority for collecting agency to employ a sub-agent to make the collection on account of the creditor. The question is one of fact, — was the agreement that the agency should collect the debt, or that it should merely employ some one else to col- lect it for the creditor.? In the absence of any controlling evidence, it is submitted that the New York rule is the better ; for, as the Court says, " if banks into whose care negotiable instruments are placed for collecting are regarded as principals, so much the more should a collection agency whose sole business is to collect claims placed in its hands, be so regarded." Bail after CoNVicrioN pending Appeal — Power of Justice of Supreme Court. — Paragraph 2, rule 36, of the Supreme Court of the United States (11 Sup. Ct. iv.), provides that where a writ of error is allowed in case of conviction of a crime, the justice or judge of the Circuit Court or District Court shall have power to