Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 1.djvu/212

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


Adultery, What is.—A, having recovered a judgment of divorce from B, in good faith married C. The judgment was reversed on appeal. Held—That A had not committed adultery by her cohabitation with C, though that marriage was invalid, and children born of it would be illegitimate. The decree of divorce was in effect “an invitation extended by the law itself” to a new marriage. Immoral intent is of the essence of the crime. Bailey v. Bailey, 45 Hun, 283, 36 Alb. L. R. 264.

Agency—Ratification.—The agent of A, an insurance company, wrote a policy for B, B giving his note for the premium. It was also agreed between them that if the policy, on being sent to B, did not suit him it could be returned and the note would be given back. The policy was not satisfactory, and was returned, but A claimed to recover on the note because the agent exceeded his authority in making the agreement to return it. Held—the agreement was part of the contract, and if that was void, the whole was void. The company could not ratify a part and repudiate the remainder. Jacoway v. Germ. Ins. Co., 5 S. W. Rep. 339 (Ark.).

Constitutional Law—Police Power.—The Board of Health of the city of Boston ordered that all rags imported should be disinfected. The defendant, under orders from the Board, disinfected some belonging to the plaintiffs, who refuse to pay the charges, and bring suit for the rags. Held—The provision is constitutional as being within the police power of the State. “There can be no doubt of the right of the legislature to pronounce, under its police power, certain things or certain acts nuisances in themselves. Nor are such laws obnoxious to any constitutional provision, because they do not provide compensation to the individual whose liberty to keep or do them is restrained.” Train v. Boston Disinfecting Co., 11 N. E. Rep. 929 (Mass.).

Corporation—Liability for Conspiracy.—“If actions can be maintained against corporations for malicious prosecution, libel, assault and battery, and other torts, we can perceive no reason for holding that actions may not be maintained against them for conspiracy.” Buffalo Lubricating Oil Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 12 N. E. Rep. 825 (N.Y.).

The editor’s note cites numerous cases to show that the doctrine that corporations are not liable in tort is exploded. To the same effect, D. & R. G. R. Co. v. Harris, Wash. Law Rep. 609.

Evidence—Comparison of Handwriting.—A depositor sues a bank for his balance. They claim to hold vouchers for it, but plaintiff says they are not genuine. The defendant’s cashier testifies that the signature is the plaintiff’s, and on cross-examination is asked if two specimens of handwriting submitted to him, and not in any way connected with the case, are also in the plaintiff’s hand. He says they are. A witness for the plaintiff is allowed to testify that he wrote them during the trial. Held—Error. Extrinsic papers are not admissible into the case, on the ground that it would lead to an indefinite number of collateral issues. Rose v. First National Bank, 23 Rep. 694 (Mo.).

Evidence, Real.—A physician, in order to show the jury that a woman was paralyzed on one side, thrust a pin into her flesh in several places. Neither the physician nor the woman had been sworn. This was alleged as error, because they might wholly deceive Court and jury, without being liable for perjury. But the Court thought that the oath to tell the truth did not fit the case, and knew of no other oath to administer to witnesses save that to interpret correctly, which is equally unsuitable. And it is unquestionable that in civil cases one may exhibit his injuries to the jury. Osborne v. City of Detroit, 32 Fed. Rep. 36.

Infant—What are Necessaries.Ryder v. Wombwell, L. R. 4 Ex. 32, which did not allow it to be shown that goods were not necessaries, because the infant was already supplied, is no longer law in England. It was not followed in Barnes v. Taye, 13 Q.B.D. 410, and has been expressly dissented from by the High Court of Justice, Lord Esher, M. R., stating in terms that he would hold it wrong if the point ever came before him sitting in a Court of Appeal.—Johnstone v. Marks, 35 W. R. 806.