532
The Green Bag
reasonable, unjustly discriminative, and void in view of the fact that it called for an excessive proportion of the figures of the nomination petition to the total number of legal voters of the county. The decision was rendered in the case of People ex rel. Hotchkiss et al. v. Smith et al., Board of Elections of Putnam County. The Appellate Division affirmed the order directing that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue directing the Board of Elections of Putnam County to disregard the provisions of the statute in question as unconstitutional and void. On appeal, the Court of Appeals, Chase, J., writing the opinion, said that jurisdiction would be assumed in matters of a pressing public nature involving public officers. In Putnam county the average total vote at general elections is a little over 3,000. "A statutory provision re quiring the signatures of 1,500 or even 1,000 voters to entitle a person to file a certificate for inde pendent nominations is, in view of the total number of voters in some of the counties of the state, so manifestly unreasonable as a matter of law that the unconstitutionality of the requirement does not make necessary any dis cussion by us." The order of the Appellate Division was so modified as to direct the Board of Elections to receive certificates of nomination for certain offices when signed by 500 legal voters. (N. Y. Law Jour., Oct. 8.) Joint and Several Guarantors. — Con tribution Enforced after Claim was Barred by Statute of Limitations — Promissory Notes. N. Y. In Hard v. Mingle, decided by the New York Court of Appeals Oct. 1, two parties guaranteed, jointly and severally, the payment of a promissory note to a bank which it discounted for a third party. After the bank took the note, but before its maturity, one of the guarantors died. The maker became insolvent, but the bank failed to commence a timely action against the deceased guarantor's estate, whereupon its claim against the estate was barred by the short Statute of Limitations. The co-guarantor subsequently paid the note and then brought an action against the estate of the deceased guarantor for contribution. It was held, per Haight, J., that the action
could be maintained; that failure of the bank to commence a timely action against the es tate of the deceased guarantor did not relieve the co-guarantor from full liability, or the decedent's estate from liability to make con tribution to him. (New York Law Journal, Oct. 7.) Wild Animals.— Duty of Keeper to Look Out for Safety of Others — Degree of Care Owed to Persons Admitted on Free Tickets. U. S. A place of amusement known as the "Hippo drome" had been maintained for some time in Kansas City. In connection therewith was a wild animal show, with cages installed along one side of the room containing lions and other animals. A certain Miss Cushman, wearing a red hat, went to an afternoon performance with a view to going home with one Miss Rose, one of the exhibitors and trainers of the lions. She was admitted without having purchased a ticket, for Miss Rose had left word with the doorkeeper to that effect. The show closed, Miss Rose giving the last performance, and the lions were returned to their several cages. The audience left, but Miss Cushman remained, waiting for Miss Rose to come back from the dressing room. At some time during this wait four lionesses had been turned back from their cages into the arena. Probably attracted by the red hat, or because of some vicious propensity, one of the lionesses reached through the bars of the arena and seized the young woman by the head and seriously lacerated her. She brought suit for $5,000, and the jury found for her in the sum of $3,000. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals, eighth circuit, held that while it is not unlawful for a person to keep wild beasts, though they may be such as are by nature fierce, dangerous, and irreclaimable, it is their duty to keep them in such a manner as to prevent the occurrence of an injury to others through such vicious acts of the animals as they are naturally inclined to conmit. Miss Cushman was not a trespasser, even though she bought no ticket, but was law fully in the place with defendant's consent, and defendant owed the same degree of care to pro tect her from injury as to other visitors. Judg ment for plaintiff affirmed. Parker v. Cushman, 195 Federal Reporter 715.
