734
THE GREEN BAG
Court Reporter, 466, that the fact that the only upon the plaintiff in the divorce proceedings to use made of a lot abutting on a street improvement show insolvency of the grantor. is for a railroad right of way, does not make SHIPPING. (Negligence — Damage from invalid for lack of benefits an assessment thereon for grading, curbing, and paving, which assessment Swells.) U. S. D. C. for E. D. of N. Y. — The is made under the area rule prescribed by the Asbury Park, 138 Federal Reporter, 925, contains Kentucky statutes. Fully as comprehensive a a holding no less interesting with respect to its grasp of the reasons underlying the decisions relation to the law of admiralty, than it is because upholding the front foot rule in the first instance of the analogy which the situation presented can be gained from this present opinion, which in bears to negligent injuries in other cases. In the a manner extends and elaborates that rule, as case mentioned, it appeared that a schooner can be acquired from the original opinions. The properly moored at a dock was caused to strike key-note of the real gist of all these cases is touched the structure by the swells of a steamer passing by Mr. Justice Holmes in responding to the about one mile away. There was evidence that argument that as special assessments are founded it was known that either from the steamer's on special benefits, a law which makes it possible construction, or the speed with which she was to assess beyond the amount of a special benefit customarily navigated, she was peculiarly liable to is necessarily invalid. In reply to this the opinion cause swells dangerous to other shipping. Under says in part: "The foundation of this familiar these circumstances it was held that the steamer form of taxation is a question of theory. The was liable for the injury, and the argument that amount of benefit which an improvement will as no injury had occurred at the same dock confer upon particular land — indeed, whether before, the navigation of the steamer could not it is a benefit at all — is a matter of forecast and be regarded as negligent, is rejected. The court estimate. In its general aspects, at least, it is suggests that accidents arise from the presence peculiarly a thing to be decided by those who of favoring conditions so that a negligent act may be repeated often and yet meet with no make the law. The result of the supposed con stitutional principle is simply to shift the burden object so situated as to be harmed thereby. to a somewhat large taxing district — the Thus, it often happens that the restraint of the municipality — and lo disguise, rather than to law is inefficient to check the speed of vehicles answer, the theoretic doubt. A statute like the using public highways so that cars, automobiles, present manifestly might lead to the assessment carriages, and vessels are often driven at a speed of a particular lot for a sum larger than the value that is, in fact, negligent, although the watchful of the benefits to that lot. The whole cost of the ness of Jhose endangered thereby may prevent improvement is distributed in proportion to area, injury from such negligence. Such operation, and a particular area might receive no benefits however, is wrongful; deprives others of their at all, at least if its present and probable use be rights and imposes upon them greater care than taken into account. Upholding the act as the law demands, and in such case when injury embodying a principle generally fair and doing arises, it is not a sufficient answer to say that as nearly equal justice as can be expected seems neither person nor property have previously been to import that if a particular case of hardship injured. arises under it, that hardship must be borne as one of the imperfections of human things." WILLS. (Suicide of Testator — Public Policy.) N. Y. S. C., App. Div. — A point which we do not remember to have seen decided before, possibly PROPERTY. (Fraudulent Conveyance in Antici pation of Divorce.) Okl. — Bennett v. Bennett, because the contention was never advanced in 8 1 Pac. Rep. 632, does not seem to depart from just that form is contained in the latter portion the ordinary current of authority in holding that of the opinion in Roche v. Nason, 93 New York Supplement, 565. It is there said that a will where a husband, with notice that a divorce pro ceeding is about to be commenced against him or made by a person contemplating, and who sub with notice of such facts as would reasonably apprise sequently commits suicide, is not invalid on him of this fact, conveys his property to an infant grounds of public policy. Rigg v. Palmer. 115 son, the offspring of a marriage with a former N. Y. 506, 22 N. E. 188, is referred to, and the wife, and it is apparent that the purpose of the rather obvious distinction between the two cases conveyance was to defeat a decree for alimony, is pointed out. In the latter case it was merely the burden of proof is upon the grantee to show held that a person who murders a testator for the a valuable consideration, or that such conveyance express purpose of preventing him from changing would not tend to defeat any alimony that might his will and to obtain immediate possession of be granted. And also, that the burden is not property devised to him cannot receive it.
