176
THE GREEN BAG
Johnson v. Shepherd, 39 Southern Reporter, 223. It appears that slaves cohabited and had a child before the war. The mother died before the war. The father then commenced to cohabit with another slave, which was continued until after the close of the war, resulting in the birth of another child. This latter child claimed prop erty as heir of the first one, who was by blood his half-brother. It is held, however, citing Melinda v. Gardner, 24 Ala. 719, and Smith v. State, 9 Ala. 966, that the first child was illegitimate, so that the second child, though rendered legitimate by continued cohabitation of his parents after they were able to contract marriage, could not inherit from his half-brother. PROPERTY. (Licenses— Revocation.) Mass. — Under the Massachusetts statute, authoriz ing the board of health of a city to issue licenses for the use of buildings as stables, it is held that such a license, when issued, is not a contract be tween the licensee and its grantor, and does not confer on the former any vested right of prop erty, so that its revocation, if legal, does not deprive him of any constitutional privilege. Lowell v. Archambault, 75 Northeastern Reporter, 65. It is also said that though the statute con tains no provision for the recall of a license, once granted, it is nevertheless the purpose of the statute that the license shall specify the extent of the right conferred by setting forth the condi tions under which the building may be constructed and used, and that the right to erect and use the stable is subject to the reasonable regulations of the board of health. Where a license was granted by a board of health, permitting the erec tion of a building for a stable, which license con tained no limit of time for its exercise, and was not subject to any existing regulations prescribed by the board, it was held, in spite of the fore going determinations, that the license could not be revoked by the board on the objection of citi zens living in the vicinity of the building, and this, even though the license might have been improvidently issued. RAILROADS. (Power of Commission.) N. C. — A case of great local interest and which may well be of some importance in the construction of other similar statutes, is that of North Caro lina Corporation Commission v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, 51 Southeastern Re porter, 793, known as the " Track Scales Case." North Carolina Laws 1899, p. 291, c. 164, creates the North Carolina Corporation Commission, and declares that it shall have such general control and supervision of all railroad . . . companies or
corporations engaged in the carrying of freight or passengers . . . necessary to carry into effect the provisions of the act. Section 2 empowers the commission to make just and reasonable rules and regulations for the handling of freight and baggage at stations, and to require depot accom modations commensurate with the business and revenue. Under this statute, it is maintained that the corporation commission has authority to require a railroad company to install track scales at points where the business is of sufficient volume to justify it. Railroad Company v. Minnesota, 193 U. S. 63; 24 Sup. Ct. 396, is cited to the effect that a railroad company may be required to establish a new depot wherever neces sary, and it is argued that the installation of track scales is a matter equally within the control of the state through its legislative power dele gated to the corporation commission. It is well established that the state may through a commission regulate all matters in the conduct of a railroad which are connected with its obliga tions to the public. As one of the most obvious of these duties is to furnish adequate facilities, it is plain that an order of the commission in relation to the provision of conveniences for handling business will be upheld by the courts, unless the requisitions of the commission seem to them to be outrageous. In the present case, however, it seems clear that it is reasonable to demand that the railroad shall install track scales at certain places when the business is of sufficient volume to justify it. B. W. SALES. (Conditional Sales — Record.) Mo. Ct. App. — The Missouri statutes relative to the recording of contracts of conditional sales, and providing that when any goods or chattels are pre tended to have been loaned to any person with whom possession shall remain for five years, the loan shall be taken as to all creditors of the per son in possession, to be void, are construed in Gil bert Book Co. v. Sheridan, 89 Southwestern Re porter, 555. The statute concerning conditional sales provides that they shall be void as to all sub sequent purchasers in good faith and creditors, unless evidenced by a writing executed and re corded as in case of mortgages. The words " good faith " in this statute are, it is held, confined to the case of a subsequent purchaser, and do not apply to a subsequent chattel mortgagee of the holder of the property under an alleged conditional sale, so that the mortgagee was not precluded from as serting title by notice of the claim of the condi tional seller. This statute is further interpreted as applying to transfers of personal property be tween the original parties in praesenti and as hav
