NOTES OF RECENT CASES racial distinctions and antipathies and the rights of carriers as affected thereby. West Chester & Philadelphia Ry. Co. v. Miles, 55 Pa. 209, 93 Am. Dec. 744, is referred to as a leading case. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. v. Williams, 55 Ill. 185, 8 Am. Rep. 641; Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 505, 24 L. Ed. 547; Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 16 Sup. Ct. 1138. 41 L. Ed. 256, and other cases are also cited. The court came to the conclusion that where substantially equal accommodations for both races are furnished, that the colored person has no ground of complaint by reason of not being allowed to ride with white persons. CORPORATIONS (Foreign Jurisdiction). U. S. Sup. Ct. — The question of what constitutes doing business by a foreign corporation so as to subject itself to service of process recently came up again in the Supreme Court in Green v. Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railway Company, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 595, 205 U. S. 530, 51 L. Ed. 916. The action was originally brought in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It was shown that defendant was a railroad com pany, the Eastern terminus of whose road was at Chicago, but that it maintained an office in Phil adelphia for the purpose of soliciting freight and passenger traffic. The court declined to formulate any general rule as to what constitutes " doing business " within the law regulating service of process but held the facts here shown to be in sufficient: citing Maxwell v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., (C. C.) 34 Fed. 286; N. K. Fairbank & Co. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 4 C. C. A. 403, 9 U. S. App. 212, 54 Fed. 420, 38 L. R. A. 271; Union Associated Press v. Times-Star Co., (C. C.) 84 Fed. 4r9; Earle v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., (C. C.) 127 Fed. 235. CORPORATIONS (Liability of Directors for Wrongful Payment of Dividends). N. J. Err. & App. — In Siegman v. Electric Vehicle Company, 65 Atl. Rep. 910, the bill was filed by plaintiff against the defendant company and one Kissel, who had formerly been one of the corporation's directors at a time when certain dividends were declared and paid out of the capital of the companv. It was alleged that Kissel had voted for the declaration of these illegal dividends and it was here sought to recover them for the benefit of the corporation and stockholders. The plea of defend ant did not deny these allegations but alleged that plaintiff had heretofore tried to persuade the company and its directors to institute similar pro ceedings; that a committee had been appointed to investigate the matter and had reported advising against action on the ground that it would be unfair and detrimental to the best interest of the company, that plaintiff's demand for the institu
733
tion of suit had thereupon been denied unless it should be ordered by a majority in interest of the stockholders other than the former directors. There were further allegations that a stock holders' meeting had been called on request of complainant; that by a large majority it was voted to not institute the proceedings. The court held the plea insufficient as stating no defense. It quoted the New Jersey statute governing declara tion of dividends and liability of corporate officers and said that the violation of these laws affected not only the rights of stockholders but those of creditors also; that it reduced the actual corporate assets while apparently indicating an actual increase; that, so far as the rights of the stock holders were concerned, it could be sanctioned only by unanimous vote and that even this could not take away the right of the public to be not misled as to the actual corporate assets. CRIMINAL LAW (Jurisdiction). Ga. — The Georgia Supreme Court has decided that there is one class of criminals immune from prosecution under the existing laws of that state. Certain persons were accused of the offense of receiving stolen goods. It appeared that they were the fruils of a burglary committed in the state of South Carolina and subsequently brought into Georgia and there purchased by defendants. The law of Georgia provides no punishment for bringing stolen goods into the state, and the statute relating to receiving stolen goods makes the recipient an accomplice to the larceny and subject to the same punishment as the thief. The court said that thev had no authority to punish for a theft committed in a foreign state and as the punishment of the recipient of the goods was prescribed as being the same as that of the thief, they could not punish him either. Golden v. State, 58 S. E. Rep. 557. CRIMINAL LAW (Military Law). U. S. D. C. So. Dist., Fla. — To Judge Locke of the United States District Court has been submitted the per plexing question of the right of a municipality to punish an enlisted soldier for violation of an ordinance. The case came up in the form of habeas corpus proceedings and is reported under the title: Ex parte Schlaffer, 154 Fed. Rep. 921. Schlaffer. a United States soldier, was convicted of violation of a municipal ordinance, fined the sum of $25, and, upon default in the payment, sentenced to imprisonment for 60 days. His commanding officer instituted habeas corpus proceedings to secure his release. The 59th Article of War pro vides that soldiers shall be delivered up to civil authorities only when their acts have resulted in injury to person or property. There was no con tention in this case that there had been any such injury. Judge Locke comments on the deplorable
