NOTES OF RECENT CASES ern District of Arkansas; Snead v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 151 Fed. 608, decided March 25, this year, by Judge Speer in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Georgia; Plummer v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 152 Fed. 206, decided March 2, by Judge Hanford in the Circuit Court for the Western District of Washington, and Kelley v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 152 Fed. 211, decided March 11, this year, by Judge Morris in the Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Municipal Corpo rations.) Mich. Sup. Ct. — A provision of a city charter that the city should never be liable for any damage sustained by any person in conse quence of the neglect of any person to keep any sidewalk clear of snow, etc., or other obstruction, was in Maclam v. City of Marquette, 111 N. W. 1079, upheld as valid and not open to the objec tion that it was class legislation. A case support ing the contention that the law is invalid is noted, i.e., Hincks v. Milwaukee, 46 Wis. 566, 1 N. W. 230, 32 Am. Rep. 735, but the court remarks that this case is not in harmony with the decisions of Michigan in relation to what constitutes class legislation. The trial judge had filed a written opinion on rehearing in the case in which he reviewed the Michigan cases as to what consti tutes class legislation, and this portion of the opinion is adopted by the Supreme Court. As these cases are all from Michigan, space will not be taken up with the citation of them. Anyone wishing an exhaustive review of the cases from that jurisdiction on the point is referred to the opinion in this case. CORPORATION. (Succeeding to Partnership Business — Liability for Firm Debts.) U. S. C. C. A., N. Y. — In Du Vivier & Co. v. Gallice, 149 Fed. 118, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals holds that a corporation organized by the members of a partnership, to whom all the stock is issued, to take over all the property of the partnership and continue its business at the same place is liable for the debts of the partner ship, even though such debts were not expressly assumed by the partnership. CORPORATION. (Ultra Vires.) Minn. — The case of Burns v. St. Paul City Railway Company, 112 N. W. 412, involving the right of a news paper publisher to enjoin the street railway from carrying advertisements in its cars, because ultra vires, presents a rather novel question. Counsel for plaintiff in the case states " with vivacity that is refreshing and a plausibility that is rather surprising " that the application was not "a path breaker " but that the path was not only " broken" but "well paved — macadam
ized with precedents." The court, however, is of the opinion that the numerous cases cited by plaintiff's counsel are not in point, and holds that the plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction against the street railroad. " His damages " the court says " if they exist at all, are entirely conjectural and extremely remote. The advertising business was incidental to the running of cars. Incidental thereto was the expenditure of considerable sums of money. That, incidentally, might result in a decrease in newspaper advertising. That, inci dentally, might take from plaintiff's paper adver tisements which might otherwise have come to it. Even if the street car company exceeded its powers, which, as at present advised, we think it did not, plaintiff's damage is too remote to give him any standing in a court of equity." CUSTOMS DUTIES. (Automobile.) U. S. C. C. A., N. Y. — An automobile is in Hillhouse v. United States, 152 Fed. 163, held to come within the classification of " household effects " under the Tariff Act, July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 2, Free List, par. 504, 30 Stat. 196 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901 p. 1683]. This conclusion is largely based on the case of Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U. S. 495, 5 Sup. Ct. 241, 28 L. Ed. 825, wherein the United States Supreme Court held that carriages were properly classified as household effects. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION. (Illegitimacy.) Cal. ■— A case illustrating the disadvantage of abandoning the common law for statutes in de claring substantive rights is the recent case of in re De Cigaran's Estate, 89 Pac. 833. In California there is a law which declares that where an illegitimate child, not acknowledged by his father, dies intestate, without issue, his estate goes to his mother, or on her decease, to her heirs. This law the court holds to provide a rule of succession for a special case so as to take the descent of property from an illegitimate child out of the rule provided by the general statutes as to descent. The adoption of this rule, as in the case at bar. seems to work a substantial injustice, for it is there held that the property of the deceased, an illegitimate daughter, not acknowledged by her father, passes on her death intestate and without issue, leaving surviving a husband, to another illegitimate child of her predeceased mother, by another father, who had not acknowl edged her as his child, and not to the surviving husband. The court recognizes that an injustice is done, but feels bound to follow the plain and unambiguous provision of the law. The right of a surviving spouse to inherit is one solely for the legislature to determine and the courts cannot substitute their own views thereon for the views of the law-making power.
