NOTES OF RECENT CASES sion was to secure creditors as well as stock holders of corporations against the practice of issuing fictitious stock and stock upon an insuffi cient consideration whereby the actual capital was much less than the amount represented by the shares issued and sold and that the assets of the corporation should be something substantial and of such a character as to be subjected to the pay ment of claims against it. as well as to secure the stockholders in their rights in the capital stock. The court held that the secret formula was not property within the terms of the constitution, and therefore the issuance of stock on the con sideration of its transfer to the corporation was contrary to the constitution and those who received the stock must be held responsible to the creditors of the corporation for the face value of the shares received by them. DEAD BODIES. (Civil Liability for Mutila tion of.) N. C. Sup. Ct. — The question of the civil liability of a railroad corporation for the mutilation of the body of a person found dead on its tracks was before the supreme court of North Carolina in Kyles v. Southern Ry. Co., 61 S. E. Rep. 278. The husband of plaintiff was killed on the track of the defendant railroad and the body badly mutilated. After the dis covery of the body the employees of the railroad, on the plea that they did not think they had a right to touch the body until the arrival of the coroner, allowed it to remain where it was between the rails so that a dozen or more trains passed over it going in both directions. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to show that the employees willfully, wantonly and brutally allowed the body to be mutilated, but states that if they did negligently permit it to be exposed on the track and failed to properly care for it the railroad was liable in damages for the physical and mental suffering of the widow of the deceased caused by the knowledge thereof and if they refused to remove the remains from a willful, wanton or malicious motive, punitive damages were allowable in the discretion of the jury. DEPOSITIONS. (Suppression of Unsigned Duplicates.) N. Y. Sup. Ct. — In Decauville Auto Co. v. Metropolitan Bank, 108 N. Y. Supp. 1027, it was shown that an order for a commission had been issued for examination of certain witnesses in France, and that the tesimony had been acually taken and the depositions subscribed. The witnesses refused, however, to turn them over to the attorneys unless a stipulation should be given that they should not be used in any litigation that might arise agajnst their employer, a French corporation. Plaintiff refused to so stipulate and defendant then sought to introduce
425
unsigned duplicates of the depositions. The appellate division of the New York Supreme Court held that under the New York statute it had no authority to do this, but directed the lower court to issue an order for a commission to take testimony on interrogatories if they could be so framed as to exclude the matter to which the witnesses objected and if this could not be done that letters rogatory issue unless plaintiff agree to the admission of the unsigned duplicates. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION. (Rights of Murderer to Inherit from Victim.) Mo. Sup. Ct. — The Supreme Court of Missouri, in its opinion in Perry v. Strawbridge, 108 S. V. Rep. 641, very justly characterizes the case as " an exceedingly interesting one," and while stating that the views therein expressed are not in harmony with the majority of similar cases, perhaps most people will agree that the result reached is favorable to the highest regard for life and public policy. The action was instituted for partition of real estate formerly owned 'by a Mrs. Evans. She was murdered by her husband and he committed suicide shortly afterward. Two of the parties in the suit were daughters of Evans by a former wife and claimed as his heirs on the ground that he inherited a one-half interest from his murdered wife. The court gives a -learned and somewhat lengthy discussion of the similar reported cases and comes to the conclusion that although the most of them hold that murder will not bar the right of inheritance from the victim by the murderer, a proper regard for safety and public policy points the other way; that Evans took no interest in his wife's estate when he murdered her and of course his cfaughters therefore inherited nothing from it. FRAUD. (Illegal Marriage.) (N. Y. SUp. Ct.) — The question of the civil liability of parties to an illegal marriage was before the Supreme Court of New York in the case of Colt v. O'Connor et al., 109 N. Y. Supp. 689. It appeared that Mrs. Colt, a widow, was married to O'Connor's testator while he had another wife living. She did not know of the existence of the other wife or lhat her own marriage was in any way rendered invalid. After the marriage she nursed her husband through a long illness and at his request kept their marriage a secret for nearly two years, although he was almost constantly at her home. The court held that she was entitled to damages against testator for the injury caused by marrying her while his other wife was living. INSURANCE. (Mother of Insured as Member of his Family.) Mo. Ct. of App. — Is the mother of an insured who is married, a member of his
