NOTES ON RECENT CASES Court reversed this decision and said that the mere happening of the accident called for an explanation and that a slight and almost invisible barrier might have been provided. PATENTS. (Rights of Master and Servant.) Mass. — Two or three interesting questions relating to patents are discussed in American Circular Loom Co. v. Wilson, 84 N. E. Rep. 133. One of defendants, while in the employ of plaintiff, invented certain machinery and acquired by assignment certain other inventions, all of which were put to use by plaintiff with defendant's acquiescence. Plaintiff sought torequire defendant to assign to it all rights in all the patents. The court held that there was no breach of duty by defendant in securing a patent to his own invention but that the assigned patents, secured while acting as plaintiff's superintendent, should be decreed as being held intrust. Plaintiff was held, however, to be estopped by its own acts from claiming the beneficial interest in one of these. PRIVACY. (Statute restraining Publication of Photograph.) N. Y. Sup. Ct. — In Moser v. Press Pub. Co., 109 N. Y. Sup. 963, the Supreme Court, Special Term, construes Laws 1903, p. 308, c. 132 authorizing any person, whose name or portrait is used for the purposes of trade without his written consent, to restrain the use thereof, and concludes that it has no application to the publication of a person's photograph without his consent in a daily newspaper in connection with items of news not in any way libelous. In the course of the decision, the court says that while it may be that the statute is broad enough to give a cause of action to a person whose portrait was unauthorized!)' published or used in a newspaper continuously, day after day, in connection with the advertisement of some patent medicine or some other commodity which the advertiser was interested in selling, and for the purpose of trade, it did not think it was ever intended by the Legislature that a newspaper could be prohibited from using or publishing in a single issue the name and portrait of a person without his consent having first been obtained. RAILROADS. (Acquisition of Control of Other Corporation.) Mass. — In the case of AttorneyGeneral v. New York, N. H. & H. R! Co., 84 N. E. Rep. 737, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachu setts was called upon to determine whether the defendant corporation, which was organized under the statutes of both Connecticut and Massachusetts, had the power to hold stock in street railroad companies. The statutes of Massachusetts forbid railroad companies from directly or indirectlytaking or holding the stock or bonds of other
427
corporations, but the claim was made that on account of being incorporated under the laws of Connecticut this provision would not apply to defendant. The court held that notwithstanding the organization under the statutes of both states it remained a domestic corporation subject, to the laws of Massachusetts. TAXATION. (Interstate Commerce.) N. J. Ct. of Err. & App. — If a coal company sends its product into another state than that in which it was mined, to be there stored and held under its own control to await shipment to subsequent purchasers, does the property thereby become exempt from state taxation as being the subject matter of interstate commerce? This question was involved in Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Co. v. Borough of Junction, 68 Atl. Rep. 806, a certiorari proceeding to compel the setting aside of an assessment, by the New Jersey authorities, on coal brought from Pennsylvania. The court held the property not exempt and refused to set the assessment aside. This is quite in accordance with the authori ties. Pittsburg and S. Coal Co. v. Bates, 156 U. S. 577. Such a tax is not an interference with interstate commerce. There appears to be a distinction in the case of imports from foreign countries; to tax them while in the original packages awaiting a first sale is to tax imports. Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419; May v. New Orleans, 178 U. S. 496. J.H.B. TRADE UNIONS. (Unlawful Acts of Strikers.) Mass. — The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachu setts rendered a sweeping decree against promoters of a strike in Reynolds v. Davis, 84 N. E. Rep. 457. An injunction was sought by several firms and individuals to restrain a number of unin corporated associations and persons from in any way interfering with the business of complainants by inciting or furthering a strike against them. Complainants had formerly had agreements with the various unions but had decided to adopt the "open shop " policy. Defendants thereupon began to interfere with the business of complain ants and tried to compel them to adopt rules referring all questions involving disputes with employees to an executive board with which defendants were affiliated. The court held the object of the strike illegal and issued an injunction "restraining defendants from combining to gether to further the strike in question and from doing any acts whatever, peaceful or otherwise, in furtherance thereof, including payment of strike benefits and putting the plaintiffs on an unfair list."
