NOTES OF RECENT CASES attending a suit, an officer expecting orders — all these have been held to be travelers still, although their stay at the inn extended over weeks or even months. On the other hand, a sojourner at a watering place, a mother who settled in apart ments to be near her son, hosts who took a suite to entertain their company, a professional man who opened an office — these were properly held to be boarders. The present case is rather a close one; but in view of all the facts it may well be said that when the loss occurred the relation of inn keeper and guest did not exist. Bruce Wyman. JUDGMENTS. (Fraud in Obtaining Service.) U. S. S. C. — A rather interesting case, nominally involving the question whether full faith and credit had been given a judgment of one state in an action thereon in another, but really involv ing a decision as to what constitutes fraud in obtaining a judgment, is that df Jaster v. Currie, '25 Supreme Court Reporter, 614. The action was brought in Nebraska on a judgment obtained in Ohio. Service on defendant was obtained in Ohio while he was there under the advice of his attorney to attend the taking of plaintiff's deposi tion' in a case then pending in the Nebraska courts for the same cause of action for which the Ohio judgment was obtained. It was alleged by defendant that notice of the taking of the deposi tion was given him with the expectation that he would attend and would delay his return to Nebraska, after the deposition was tal^en, long enough to permit service. There seemed, as a matter of fact, to be no evidence that plaintiff was actuated by any such motive in giving the notice, but the court holds that even if this were the case, the notice was true and the taking of the deposition needed no justification, but could be taken arbitrarily because the plaintiff so chose, and that as plaintiff could also arbitrarily have defendant served with process if he was in Ohio, he could arbitrarily unite the two acts and do' the first because he hoped it would give him a chance to do the last. This is a clear case. The " fraud " which will perhaps justify a refusal to give credit to the judg ment of another state is fraud practiced on the Court in obtaining the judgment, not fraud in obtaining service of process. J. H. B. It should be noted that this case does not hold that a party to an action pending in the state where he resides is not privileged from service of civil process while attending in another state the taking of a deposition in the pending cause. There is good authority sustaining such privilege. (For
733
example, Parker v. Marco, 136 N. Y. 585.) What it holds is that a judgment obtained on such ser vice, cannot be collaterally attacked for fraud merely because advantage was taken of the party's presence to serve him. Moreover, it appeared that summons was not served until three days after the deposition had been taken, and a direct attack had failed (Jaster v. Currie, 66 Ohio St. 661), probably for that reason. LIENS. (Farming Utensils.) La. — A steam thresher necessary for the harvesting of a rice crop is within the meaning of the term " farming utensils" as used in La. Civ. Code art. 3259, so that the lien of the vendor on the proceeds of the sale of such machinery is superior to the lien of the lessor for rent. La Porte v. Libby, 38 South ern Reporter. 457. The theory of the court is that, as in the evolution of agriculture machinery has taken the place of such implements as were formerly used in aid of manual labor, the thresh ing machine is to be regarded practically as the successor of the flail, and is to the same extent a farming utensil. MASTER AND SERVANT. (Factory Law — Assumption of Risk.) Wash. — In a rather brief opinion in Hall v. West & Slade Co., 81 Pacific Reporter 915, the Supreme Court of Washington construes the factory law of that state as author izing a recovery by a servant injured through the master's noncompliance with the law, in spite of the fact that the servant has knowledge of such noncompliance and of the dangers caused thereby, so that otherwise he would be chargeable with assumption of risk. This is not a new decision, but shows that the court has a fixed determina tion to adhere to the former holding to the same effect in Green v. Western American Co., 70 Pac. 310. A dissenting opinion by Root, J., discusses the matter much more fully than the majority opinion does and combats the position of the majority with considerable learning and citation of authority. Though the decision is only by a majority of four to three it may probably be considered as finally committing the court to the doctrine announced. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. (Street Im provements — Assessments — Front Foot Rule.) U. S. S. C. — Adherence to the reasoning which led the court in Walston-t>. Nevin, 128 U. S. 578, 9 Supreme Court Reporter, 192, to uphold the tront foot rule of assessment as embodied in the Louisville Kentucky charter, necessarily required the more recent holding in Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 25 Supreme
