sundry and divers expenses and laid out and spent large sums of money, amounting to $2,000, in and about endea voring to he cured of his said wounds, hurts, bruises and fractures occasioned by the said defendant as aforesaid. There is nothing to equal this summary except the anathema of the church, as set forth in "Tristram Shandy." One omission, however, is noticeable. Nothing is said about damage to the sufferer's nerves. So much injury must have worked permanent detri ment to his nervous system, entailing the most ex quisite form of suffering, including insomnia. (It is highly probable that his lawyers must also have suf fered from insomnia — they must have "sat up nights " to invent this statement.) Certainly some thing ought to have been alleged on behalf of the ganglion. The Baron's Authority. — The "London Law Journal " says : — "Marital authority was generally supposed to have been finally exploded by the Jackson Case, but the learned edi tors of the new edition of ' Chitty on Contracts ' hold out a hope that the husband is not reduced to quite such a state of connubial impotence as was thought. Suppose a wife, for instance, wants to become a singer, actress, or school mistress, or to go out to service, or to enter into any other contract which would take her so much away from the con jugal domicil as to interfere with the matrimonial relation, could she do so without the consent of her quondam lord and master? The editors of ' Chitty ' say No. In these days of stage aspirations this may easily become a burning question. When Sheridan married the beautiful Mrs. Linley he would not allow her to sing in public, though he might have made thousands by doing so; and Dr. Johnson applauds his spirit. But what will the new woman have to say to this? We tremble to think of the scene when the stage-struck Angelina announces her intention of going to see a manager, and Edwin authoritatively says No! In France, it seems that a husband's authority to his wife tak ing a theatrical engagement is so essential, that if he ob jects, no judicial sanction can supply the want of consent." It would seem that in this country generally this question would be answered. Yes! The New York statute, which is the type, as we understand, of that of a considerable number of other States, enables the emancipated wife to perform any labor or services on her sole and separate account, and to hold her earn ings therefrom as her sole and separate property. The " new woman " may deliver her " Caudle Lec tures " in public, if she will, and if anybody will listen; and she is doing it to a large extent. We have long since outmarched that mirror of domestic virtue, Sher idan, and that amiable censor of morals and manners, Sam Johnson. As Yankees, we may be permitted to "guess" that even if a British wife sees fit to become an actress, singer or schoolmistress, the British courts will not deem it a case of "misbehaviour," and will brush away the husband's objections as summarily and
505
contemptuously as they did in the Jackson case, where the husband sought to imprison his reluctant wife and compel her to live with him. The only safeguard, as it seems to us, is for a man to marry a woman so sen sible and affectionate, and to be to her so kind and considerate, that she will feel no temptation to sing or play to or teach anybody but her own children .
NOTES OF CASES. Insurance — Former, but Invalid. — It is an extremely vexed question whether insurance which is invalid by reason of prior valid insurance will defeat the prior policy under a provision against additional insurance. The question arose for the first time, and was decided in the negative, in Sweeting v. Mutual F. Ins. Co., Maryland Court of Appeals, 32 L. R. A. 570. The point is learnedly discussed, and the Court array the authorities as follows : "It is this: Does the fact that a subsequent policy was procured without the consent of the first underwriter avoid the first policy, under the above quoted conditions con tained therein, against other insurance, when the second policy explicitly declares that the company which issued it shall not be liable for loss if there is other prior insur ance, whether valid or not, held on the same property, without the written consent of the second insurer? There is a wide diversity of opinion on this question in the various courts of this country. The doctrine laid down by the highest tribunals of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and other states is that the subsequent insurance being invalid at the time of the loss, by reason of the breach of condi tion therein, the prior insurance is good, and the first underwriter is liable on the policy issued by it. Thomas v. Builders' Mut. F. Ins. Co. 119 Mass. 121, 20 Am. Rep. 317; Allison v. Phcenix Ins. Co. 3 Dill. 480, Fed. Cas. No. 252; Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Holt, 35 Ohio St. 189; Knight v. Eureka F. & M. Ins. Co. 26 Ohio St. 664, 20 Am. Rep. 778; Stacey v. F'ranklin F. Ins. Co. 2 Watts & S. 506; Jackson v. Massachusetts Mut. F. Ins. Co. 23 Pick. 418, 34 Am. Dec. 69; Clark v. New England Mut. F. Ins. Co. 6 Cush. 342, 53 Am. Dec. 44; Hardy v. Union Mut. F. Ins. Co. 4 Allen, 217; Philbrook v. New England Mut. F. Ins. Co. 37 Me. 137; Lindley v. Union F'armers' Mut. Ins. Co. 65 Me. 368, 20 Am. Rep. 701; Gale v. Belknap County Ins. Co. 41 N. H. 170; Gee v. Cheshire County Mut. F. Ins. Co. 55 N. II. 65; Jersey City Ins. Co. v. Nichol, 35 N. J. Eq. 291, 40 Am. Rep. 625; Schenck v. Mercer County Mut. F. Ins. Co. 24 N. J. L. 447 : Rising Sun Ins. Co. v. Slaughter, 20 Ind. 520; May, Ins. § 364. "On the other hand, it has been held elsewhere that a subsequent policy, whether legally enforceable or not, or whether voidable on its face, or voidable for extrinsic matter, works a forfeiture of the prior policy. Carpenter v. Providence Washington Ins. Co. 41 U. S. 16 Pet. 495, 10 L. ed. 1044; Allen v. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co. 30 La. Ann. 1386, 31 Am. Rep. 243; Somerfield v. State Ins. Co. 8 Lea, 547, 41 Am. Rep. 662; Funke v. Minnesota 1'Vmers' Mut. F. Ins. Co. 29 Minn. 347, 43 Am. Rep. 216; Lackey
