NOTES OF RECENT CASES
NOTES
OF
THE
MOST
IMPORTANT
625
RECENT
CASES
COMPILED BY THE EDITORS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTER
SYSTEM
AND
ANNOTATED
BY
SPECIALISTS IN THE SEVERAL SUBJECTS (Copies of the pamphlet Reporters containing full reports of any of these decisions may be secured from the West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, at 35 cents each. In ordering, the title of the desired case should be given as well as the citation of volume and page of the Reporter in which it is printed.) BANKRUPTCY. (Alien as Trustee.) U.S.D.C., S. D. N. Y. — An alien is, in In re Coe, 154 Fed. Rep. 162, considered to be competent as a trustee in bankruptcy. By Bankruptcy Act, the term "officer " is denned as including, among others, trustee. Since, as a general proposition, no alien can be an officer, it was contended that an alien cannot be a trustee. But, in the first place, the court says that a trustee in bankruptcy does not occupy an office in the sense in which the term is used in the law prohibiting an alien from being a public officer and, in the second place, the section of the Bankruptcy Act prescribing the qualifications of trustees does not expressly prohibit aliens from acting. By such act either individ uals or corporations may be trustees. " Individ ual " is a very broad term and of course includes aliens, and the court does not see why any individ ual who is a citizen of any other state or country should not be permitted to act as trustee if he is otherwise competent. BANKRUPTCY. (Assets Passing to Trustee — Damages.) Mass. — A claim for personal injuries does not pass to the trustee in bankruptcy so as to debar the bankrupt from prosecuting an action thereon, according to Sibley v. Nason, 81 N. E. Rep. 887. The court says that the claim was not a property right until reduced to judgment, could not be reached by trustee process, nor in equity by a creditor's bill. In this case also the court holds that plaintiff was not precluded from recovering for reasonable charges for nursing and physician's services because he had included such claim in his bankruptcy schedules and had been discharged from legal liability therefor. The discharge did not prevent plaintiff from treating such obligations as debts of honor, and it was through no virtue of the defendant that plaintiff could interpose any defense to the payment of such charges. CARRIERS. (Interstate Commerce.) U. S. D. C, W. D. N. Y. — A recent case construing the
Interstate Commerce Act is United States v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, 153 Fed. Rep. 630, decided by Judge Hazel. In this case the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company was indicted for failure to file with the Interstate Commerce Commission its tariff of rates and charges for con veying petroleum from Rochester to Norwood in the State of New York, which it had established under a common arrangement with the Pennsyl vania Railroad Co., the Central Vermont Railway Co,, and the Rutland Railroad Co. for a con tinuous carriage from Olean, New York to Bur lington, Vermont, in violation of the Elkin's Act. Demurrer was interposed on the ground that the shipments complained of were intrastate and therefore the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, relating to publishing and filing tariffs, did not apply. The court, however, holds that inas much as the defendant had entered into an arrangement with other railroad companies for the continuous interstate carriage of oil, it was bound to comply with the Interstate Commerce Act, even though the line operated by defendant was wholly within the State of New York. The court notes that the Interstate Commerce Act has received a similar construction in Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 9 Interstate Commerce Report 205, and United States v. Wood 145 Fed. 405. CARRIERS. (Interstate Commerce.) U. S. C. C, S. D. N. Y. — In United States v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company (C. C), 152 Fed. 269, it was contended that a shipment from New York City to Buffalo by wav of New Jersey and Pennsylvania was not inter state commerce and hence that the giving of rebates on such shipment did not violate the Elkin's Law. The court, however, is of the opin ion that the authorities, though not entirely con sistent, support the contrary contention of the government that the shipment referred to was interstate commerce. As supporting authorities
