382
THE GREEN BAG
and void." Though this presented the constitu in ejectment to a new trial as a matter of right tional objection in a general statement, the court under the statute, but the court was of the opinion held this sufficient, and, if it found that the that if plaintiff saw fit to issue an execution on the statute contravened any provision of the Constitu judgment for costs and collected them in that tion, the ruling of the trial court in holding the manner, this was as good a payment as though statute unconstitutional should be sustained under voluntarily made by defendant. If collection was such an objection. To this proposition the court effectuated in this manner the defendant was en cites two prior Alabama cases — Montgomery v. titled to the benefit of the payment on a motion Birdsong, 126 Ala. 632, 28 South. 522; Shell Road for new trial. v. O'Donnell, 87 Ala. 376, 6 South. 119. But it TAXATION. (Federal Inheritance Tax.) U. S. is to be noted that this holding contravenes the C. C. A. 4th. Cfr. — The Federal statute of 1898 weight of authority, as it is generally held that imposing a succession tax was the subject of con one insisting on the unconstitutionality of an act struction in Kerr v. Goldborough, 150 Fed., 289. must point out the specific constitutional provision This law classified legatees and distributees with that is violated. As cases supporting the general reference to their degree of blood relationship to doctrine may be cited: Rohrbacker v. Jackson, 51 the deceased and regulated the taxes accordingly. Miss. 735; In re League Island, 1 Brewst. (Pa.) In the first class were placed the lineal issue of 524; Davis v. State, 71 Tenn. (3 Lea) 374; People lineal ancestor, brother or sister of the decedent; v. Rucker, 5 Colo. 455; Crowley v. State, 11 Ore. in the second, the descendants of a brother or 512, 6 Pac. 70; Mauldin v. City Council of Green sister; in the third, the brother or sister of the ville, 42 S. Car. 293, 20 S. E. 824, 46 Am. St. Rep. father or mother or a descendant; in the fourth, 723, 27 L. R. A. 284; Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. the brother or sister of the grandfather or grand Harry, 63 Tex. 256. mother or a descendant; and in the fifth, the PRACTICE. (Trade Secrets — Necessity of Dis beneficiaries found to be in any other degree of closure in Suit for Injunction.) N. J., Ch. — A collateral consanguinity or who may be strangers manufacturer engaged in the manufacture of steel, in blood to the person dying seised of the property. in accordance with a secret process discovered by Though an adopted child was under the laws of the him, who sues a former employee and a competitor state entitled to all the rights of heirship of a who has employed the employee to restrain the child born in lawful wedlock, the court held that such child was not " a lineal issue " within the employee from disclosing the secrets to the com petitor, and to restrain the competitor from retain first class, but a stranger in blood within the fifth ing the employee inits service, is, accordingto Taylor class. Iron and Steel Co. v. Nichols, 65 At. Rep. 695, not TORTS. (Unfair Competition.) V. S. C. C. required to disclose on the trial the secret process S. Da. — Of late years, the business of what is of his business. To require the manufacturer to known as mail order houses has increased rapidly prove such process would be destructive of his in the agricultural communities. This has more rights, the court holds. The character of the busi or less seriously affected the business of local re ness the impossibility of discovery by the analysis tailers who have in several communities in the used, added to the ordinary secrecy observed by western states combined to check the inroads on all manufacturers of goods of this class, would their business made by the mail order houses. render almost hopeless the discovery of infringe The validity of such a combination recently came ment, should the defendant take advantage of up for consideration in the case of Montgomery, information thus acquired. In support of this Ward & Company v. South Dakota Retail Mer position the court cites: Moxie Nerve Food Co. chants & Hardware Dealers Association, 150 Fed. v. Beach, 35 Fed. 465; Eastman v. Reichenbach, 413. In this case, the court held that the re 20 N. Y. Supp. 110, and Stokes Bros. Mfg. Co. v. tailers could lawfully agree among themselves not Heller, 56 Fed. 297. to purchase merchandise from wholesalers and PRACTICE. (New Trial.) N. Y. S. C. — By jobbers who sold to catalogue or mail order houses and to inform each other as to what wholesalers the New York Code of Civil Procedure the defend ant in ejectment is entitled to a new trial within and jobbers did make such sales, that in the three years from entry of judgment as a matter of furtherance of this agreement, it was not unfair right on the payment of costs. In Townshend v. competition, intimidation or coercion for the re Keenan, 102 N. Y. S. 792, it was contended that tailers whether by persuasion or any peaceable means to seek to prevent wholesalers from selling the collection of costs by execution did not con stitute a payment so as to entitle the defendant to catalogue houses.
