Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 1.djvu/115

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

sufficient notice to C of the contract. Appeal of Heimbach, 7 Atl. Rep. (Pa.) 737. But in R. Co. v. Hay, 10 N.-East. Rep. (Ill.) 29, it was held that where H contracted to sell C, a railroad company, a strip of land, and C occupied the land with track and a station, but no deed was ever given, and H then sold the land to the plaintiff, the title of the plaintiff was affected with the trust in favor of C, the use and occupation by C being sufficient notice.

Elevated RailroadCompensation to Abuttors. — An elevated steam railroad in the streets of a city, of the kind usually constructed, is a diversion of the street from the use for which it was taken, and abutting owners may recover compensation for injury inflicted, including damage caused by emission of gas, smoke, dust, cinders, and other unwholesome substances. Lohr v. Metrop. El. R. Co. 10 N.-East. Rep. (N. Y.) 528, affirming the Story Case, 90 N. Y. 122.

Equity JurisdictionAccounts. — Even where a bill for an account will not properly lie, equity will take jurisdiction of complicated transactions; but the difficulty of adjusting the accounts is the basis of jurisdiction, and mutuality of accounts is an essential element only so far as it indicates complication and intricacy. State v. Churchill, 3 S.-W. Rep. (Ark.) 352.

EscrowRevocation. — A deed in escrow, to be delivered to the vendee on payment of purchase money, is not revocable, and the party holding it is bound to deliver on payment being offered. Cannon v. Handley, 13 Pac. Rep. (Cal.) 315. To the contrary effect, Popp v. Swanke, 31 N.-W. Rep. (Wis.) 916.

EstoppelTitle. — If a party knowingly and without making known his own claim suffers another to purchase land and improve it at great expense under an erroneous opinion of title, the former will be estopped from asserting title thereafter against the latter. State v. Graham, 33 N.-W. Rep. (Neb.) 142.

EvidenceRes Gesta. — Where the car started, while plaintiff was alighting, and threw her to the ground, statements made by the conductor while hastening to help her, were held not admissible as a part of the res gesta. Williamson v. Cambridge R. Co., 10 N.-East. Rep. (Mass.) 790. See Waldele v. R. Co., 95 N. Y. 274.

Handwriting as a Test of Identity. — Where it is sought to connect the identity of A and B, documents admitted or proved to have been written by B may be compared with documents proved to have been written by A, in order to establish that the two writers were one and the same person; and persons skilled in handwriting may give an opinion. Bell v. Brewster, 10 N.-East. Rep. (O.) In adverting to the instances in which this process was resorted to, the court omit to mention the Whitaker investigation, an account of which appeared in 2 Crim. Law Mag. 139. See 31 Sol. J. 405 (1887).

HomicideCharacter of Deceased. — Where, in an indictment for manslaughter, self-defence is an issue, testimony as to the violent character of the deceased is admissible. State v. Downs, 3 S.-W. Rep. (Mo.) 219. The view in this case has been adopted by almost all States, except Massachusetts (Wharton on Homicide, § 606 et seq.; 2 Cr. Law Mag. 78; 8 N. J. Law Journ. 215); though in the latter State the contrary rule has been weakened by the Barnacle Case, 134 Mass. 215.

Illegal ContractDealing in “Futures.” — If a contract to buy merchandise is speculative only, and no actual future delivery is intended, the contract is against public policy and void. Beadles v. McElrath, 3 S.-W. Rep. (Ky.) 152. See 3 Cr. L. Mag. 16.

Indorsement - Complete upon Delivery. — Where an indorsement is written on a note by the payee in one State, and a sale and delivery is made in another State, the contract of indorsement is regarded as made in the State where the delivery occurred. Briggs v. Latham, 13 Pac. Rep. (Kas.) 393; see Ames’ Bills and Notes, I. c. 111. § 4, p. 273.

LarcenyLucri Causa. — In Pence v. State, 10 N. E. Rep. (Ind.) 919, it was held not larceny to take and burn a buggy with an intent “to get even” with the owner. This decision is contra to the latest English and a large proportion of the American authorities (collected in Whart. Cr. L. 9th Ed., §§ 895-899). It is there said that one who takes with an intent to enrich himself is morally more guilty than one who takes only to destroy; but it is hard to see why the latter is not the more villainous, as well as the more expensive to society, of the two.