572
THE GREEN BAG
that a husband and his wife, who had no children, orally agreed that in consideration of a young girl becoming a member of their family and giving to them love, obedience and service, they would, at their death, leave her all of their property. The girl fully and faithfully performed ' her part of the contract and was in possession of the land in controversy, when it was conveyed to a third person by the husband shortly before his death. The court held that such an agreement would be enforced in equity, there being no circumstances or conditions which would render enforcement inequitable. STATUTES. (Construction.) Ind. Sup. Ct.— The extreme caution which courts exercise in striving to avoid any imputation of invasion of the province of the legislative department is illustrated by the decision of the Indiana Supreme Court in State v. Squibb, 84 N. E. Rep. 969. Indictments were returned against defendant for a violation of certain food laws relating to sale of impure milk. The later statute, which was held to impliedly repeal the former one on the same subject, provides that " no person, either by his servant or agent, or as the servant or agent of another person, shall sell, exchange or deliver, or have in his custody or possession with intent to sell, exchange or deliver . . . milk produced from cows which have been fed on the refuse of distilleries." The indictments in the case under discussion charged defendant with unlawfully and knowingly having in her possession milk of the character referred to in the statute. It was contended that the law did not apply because there was no allegation that the possession was either " by his servant or agent, or as the servant or agent of another." As against the
claim of the.attorney-general that the act evidently meant to include possession by a principal him self as well as through his servant or agent, the court said the language was unmistakably plain and nothing could be read into it which the legis lature had not seen fit to include. TORTS. (Boycotts.) Mont. — The subject of restraining boycotts by labor organizations is again discussed in Lindsay & Co. v. Montana Federation of Labor, 96 Pac. Rep. 117. The principal ground of complaint against the organization was the adoption of a resolution declaring plaintiffs unfair, and the publication and distribution of a circular urging all laboring men and persons in sympathy with organized labor to withhold patronage from plaintiffs. In this the court find nothing illegal, because plain tiffs had no property right in the trade of any particular person. They say that there can be found running through our legal literature manyremarkable statements that an act perfectly law ful when done by one person becomes, by some sort of legerdemain, criminal when done by two or more persons acting in concert, and this on the theory that the concerted action amounts to a conspiracy. With such doctrine the court does not agree, and asserts that if an individual be clothed with a right when acting alone, he does not lose such right merely by acting with others, each of whom is clothed with the same right. The conclusion is that a labor organization may employ the boycott in furtherance of the objects of its existence. But if the means by which it enforces the boycott are illegal, it may render its members amenable to the law; if not, the courts cannot assist the persons boycotted, though financial loss results as the direct consequence of the boycott.
