NOTES OF RECENT CASES in charge of a train and had failed to take proper precautions to learn the rate of speed at which it was safe to run on a curve on the road; that owing to such negligence the train was wrecked, causing the death of one of the passengers. It was claimed that in the operation of a large railroad system it was impossible for the manager to personally in spect all the operating appliances and road-bed and to know the experience and carefulness of employees; also that if the negligence of any one was the proximate cause of the death, it was that of the engineer and not of the general manager. The court overruled the demurrer to the indict ment and held it sufficient. CORPORATIONS. (Monopolies.) U. S. Cir. Ct. W. D. Mich. — A number of questions relative to rights of stockholders as against control of coporate affairs by a competing corporation are decided in Bigelow v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co., ft al., 155 Fed. Rep. 869. It appeared that defendant and the Osceola Company of which complainant was president and a stockholder, were large producers of Michigan copper com mercially known as " lake copper " and that shortly prior to the time set for the annual elec tion of officers by the stockholders of the Osceola Company, defendant purchased a large number of shares of stock in the Osceola Company and secured proxies from the holders of a considerable amount of other stock and by letter to complain ant stated that it expected to obtain control of the corporate management of its rival at the election and requested that no contract should be entered into extending beyond the term of the then incumbents in corporate offices. Complain ant filed his bill asking an injunction against the voting of any of the stock held by defendant either in its own name or under proxy; alleging that the threatened action was in violation of the common law, of the Michigan statute relating to trusts, and of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. To this defendant set up several defenses. First, it claimed that under a Michigan statute giving mining companies authority to purchase stock in other mining companies, it was simply exerciseing a right granted by the legislature. Second, that a bill for injunctive relief could not be main tained under the Federal Anti-Trust Act at the instance of a private party. Third, that if there was any right of action whatever, it belonged to the corporation and not to any officer or stock holder. Fourth, that there was no threatened injury to complainant beyond that which would be suffered by the general public. All of the points were decided against defendant. In answer to the first, the court said that the statute relating to the purchase of shares in com
47
peting companies was not intended to override the law prohibiting monopolies. As against defendant's second contention, it was held that while no right to injunctive relief to private per sons was given by the Sherman Act, it might be awarded by the court in the exercise of its general equity jurisdiction. In answer to the third claim, it was held that the grievance complained of might result in an injury for which an action might be maintained by the individual stockholder and that the Osceola Company was not a neces sary party. The fourth ground of defense was met by referring to the probable ousting of com plainant from an office for which he received a substantial salary, the proposed revolutionizing of operation of the company's affairs and the like lihood of depreciation in value of complainant's stock. HIGHWAYS. (Abutter's Rights.) Mass. — In King v. Norcross, 82 N. E. Rep. 17 was deter mined the liability of a person setting out fire, which spread to wood piled in a highway. It was contended on behalf of defendant that plain tiffs were making an improper use of the highway which should prevent recovery. The court held that an abutting owner had the right to use a highway in any reasonable mannner not inter fering with the rights of the public and that this privilege might be exercised by a third person under agreement with the abutting owner. Such use being held lawful, it followed as matter of course that it would be no bar to plaintiff's right of recovery. INSURANCE. (Contract Construction.) Eng. English Privy Council, 1907, Appeal Cases 59. In Home Insurance Company of New York v. Victoria-Montreal Fire Insurance Company, in a contract of reinsurance, which was engrafted on an original printed form of fire insurance policy, and incorporated all its terms, there was a clause which purported to prohibit an action thereon unless commenced within twelve months next after the fire. The Supreme Court of Canada held that effect should be given to this clause. Lord Macnaughten on an appeal being taken to the Privy Council, said that having regard to the true construction of the contract, which carelessly purported to include many conditions inapplicable to reinsurance, the above clause must also be re garded as inapplicable. A clause prescribing legal proceedings after a limited period is a reason able provision in a policy of insurance against di rect loss to specific property. In such case the insured is master of the situation. He can bring his action immediately. In a case of reinsurance against liability the insured is helpless. He can
