NOTES ON RECENT CASES
567
NOTES OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RECENT CASES COMPILED BY THE EDITORS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTER SYSTEM AND ANNOTATED BY SPECIALISTS IN THE SEVERAL SUBJECTS (Ceplei •( the pamphlet Reporters conUminE full report! of «ny of these decisions m»y be lecured from the W«lt Publishing Company, St. P»ul, Minnesota, at 15 centi each. In ordering, the title of the desired case should be {iron at w«H *• the citation of rolame and pace of the Reporter in which it ii printed.)
ADOPTION. (Adoption by Husband without Wife Joining therein.) Pa. — What is the effect of the adoption of a child by a husband without the wife taking any part in the adoption pro ceedings? This question arose in the case of In re Carroll's Estate, 68 Atl. Rep. 1038. The wife having died, the adopted child laid claim to an interest in her estate. The court held that the proceedings by the husband created no lia bility on the part of the wife and that the claim could not be upheld. AGENCY. (Automobiles.) N. Y. Sup. — In Cunningham v. Castle, in New York Supple ment 1057, it appeared that plaintiff was injured by an automobile belonging to defendant and operated by his chauffeur. The evidence went to show that defendant and [the chauffeur had been out together in the evening and on return to defendant's apartment, the chauffeur obtained permission to use the machine for a short time for his own pleasure. While thus engaged, plaintiff was run over and injured. He brought action against the owner and recovered judgment in the lower court. On appeal to the appellate division, the judgment was reversed on the ground that the chauffeur was not engaged in any business of defendant at the time of the injury. Two of the judges dissented on the theory that the use of the machine was a mere deviation, by consent, from his course in returning it to the garage. The most vital reason for difference of opinion seemed to be on the question of the effect of the consent of the owner, the majority claim ing that it made no difference as to his liability and the minority that it furnished a reason for charging him. CARRIERS. (Duty of Passenger to Read Ticket.) Mass. — The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in French v. Merchants' & Miners' Transportation Co., 85 N. E. Rep. 424, passes on the liability of a carrier as affected by limitations in the ticket which the passenger has failed to read. The action was brought for destruction of plaintiff's baggage by fire while in
possession of defendant. The defense set out a limitation in the ticket directly releasing the com pany from liability for such losses. Plaintiff con tended that her eyesight was poor, and that she was unable to read the ticket. The court held that this fact could not increase the liability of defendant, and that plaintiff should have pro cured someone else to read her ticket to her in case she was unable to read it herself. CARRIERS. (Validity of State Railroad Rate Laws.) U. S. C. C., Ala. — Judge Jones, in an opinion rendered in the case of Central of Georgia Ry. Cy. v. Railroad Commission of Alabama, 161 Fed. Rep. 925, held the group of statutes enacted by the Alabama Legislature in 1907, for the regulation of freight and passenger rates on intrastate business, invalid as attaching such heavy penalties as to constitute denial of due process of law. The proceeding was one insti tuted to enjoin the state officers from enforc ing the legislation referred to and the defense was urged that the action was substantially one against the state and therefore beyond the juris diction of the federal courts. There is quite an extended discussion of this point resulting in a conclusion to the contrary. In a note at the end of the case the court said that the opinion was prepared before the decisions in Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 28 Sup. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. — and Hunter v. Wood, 209 U. S. 205, 28 Sup. Ct. 472; 52 L. Ed. — that otherwise these cases would merely have been cited without discussion of the points which they decided. CONTEMPT. (Death of Offender.) U. S. C. C. A. — The effect of the death of one found guilty of civil contempt is discussed by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in Wasserman v. United States, 161 Fed. Rep. 722. In a suit in equity brought by the Cleveland, Cincin nati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Wasserman, et al., to prevent alleged injury to the business of plaintiff by sale of non-transferable reduced rate tickets, a preliminary injunction was issued against defendants. Wasserman disobeyed the order of
