96 HARVARD LAW REVIEW.
RECENT CASES.
Authority of Teacher — Corporal Punishment. — In a criminal prose- cution against a teacher for assault and battery in chastising a pupil it was held, that within the limits of his Jurisdiction and responsibility a teacher may punish a pupil, not cruelly or excessively, but in proportion to the gravity of the offence, and within the bounds of moderation, and in a kind and reasonable spirit There is a presumption that the teacher properly punished the pupil, and the burden is on the latter to show the contrary. — Vanvactor v. State, 15 N. £. Rep. 341 (Ind.).
Banks and Banking — Insolvency — Discounts and Collections — Trust Fund. — A New York bank was accustomed to discount notes for a Houston bank, and on maturity forward them to the Houston bank for collection and returns, with an understanding that the proceeds of such discounted notes should be preserved by the Houston bank as the property of the New York bank, and be returned to it as such. Such notes, amounting to $5,000 having been collected by the Houston Bank, the proceeds were credited to the New York bank, and then mingled with its own funds. On the subsequent insolvency of the Houston bank, held^ • that the New York bank was entitled to payment of this amount in priority to other creditors. The understanding between the banks prevented the orainar^ relation of debtor and creditor from existing between them after the collection, and gave the proceeds the character of a trust fund, which was not divested by being mingled with the other moneys of the collecting bank. If " throughout all the trustee's dealings with the funds so mingled together, he keeps on hand a sufficient sum to cover the amount of the trust money, . . . the trust should attach to the balance that is found to remain in his hands." Continental Nat. Bank of N, Y. v. Weems, 6 S. W. Rep. 802 (Tex.).
Common Carrier — Limitation of Liability. — Action against an Express Co. for negligently delstying shipment of goods. The written contract for ship- ment contained a clause that "the said Pacific Express Co. shall not be held liable for any claim of whatsoever nature arising from this contract, unless such daim shall be presented in writing within sixty days from the date hereof.** The claim was not presented within the time required. Held, that the plaintiff's risht of recovery for delay in shipment was not barred by the clause in question. Limitations put by a common carrier upon its liability are valid only when rea- sonable. This limitation is unreasonable. Pacific Exp. Co, v. Darnell, 6 S. W. Rep. 765 (Tex.). A note collects cases.
Common Carriers — Transportation Companies — Limitation of Lia- bility. — The plaintiff delivered goods for shipment to the Merchants' Despatch Transportation Company, under a bill of lading which reserved to the company the right to select the particular line of railroads over which the goods should be sent, and stipulated that in case of loss the railroad in whose actual custody the goods shoula be at the time of the loss should alone be liable therefor. Held, that this stipulation did not relieve the company from liability for loss of the ^oods. The right of selection of lines reserved to the company made the railroads Its agents, and the company, being a common carrier, could not lawfully con- tract against the consec^uences of the negligence, of its agents. Adjudged cases have already applied this principle to express conipanies. The doctrine does not depend upon the fact that the messengers of express companies accompany the freight, but is equally applicable to the case of despatch companies. Block v. Merchants' Despatch Tramp. Co., 6 S. W. Rep. 881 (Tenn.).
Constitutional Law — Confinement for Drunkenness. — An Act pro- viding that any person charged with beins an inebriate, habitual or common drunkard, may be arrested and brought before a judge of a court of record for trial, and if convicted,. sentenced to confinement in anv inebriate or insane asylum, is in violation of Const. U. S. Amend, art. 14, §1, which declares that no State shall " deprive any person of . . . liberty . . . without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." State v. Hyan, 36 N. W. Rep. 823 (Wis.).
