NOTES OF RECENT CASES
423
NOTES OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RECENT CASES COMPILED BY THE EDITORS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTER SYSTEM AND ANNOTATED BY SPECIALISTS IN THE SEVERAL SUBJECTS
- Copies of the pamphlet Reporters containing full reports of any of these decisions may be secured from the West Publishing
Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, at 15 cents each. In ordering, the title of the desired case should be given as well as the citation of volume and page of the Reporter in which it is printed.)
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. (Presumption that Attorney's Services are Gratuitous.) N. J. Court of Err. & App. — The ancient presumption that a fee paid to an attorney is in the nature of an honorarium receives new support in Bently v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 69 Atl. Rep. 202. Arrangements were made by a supposed agent of defendants for the services of plaintiffs and pleadings were forwarded to them by defendant's New York attorneys, but there was no proof of authority on the part of any of these persons to contract for the payment of attorney's fees and the Court of Errors and Appeals held that no recovery could be had without proof of such contract and that no liability arose from the simple fact of performance of services. BANKRUPTCY. (Preferences.) (U. S. Cir. Ct. Mass.) — A very interesting question relating to the effect of a decree of the Massachusetts land court granting registration of title to land under Mass. Rev. Laws, c. 128, was raised in Morris v. Small et. al., 160 Fed. Rep. 142. One Floyd, within four months before his bankruptcy, mortgaged the real estate in question to Small, for which conveyance Small paid no new consideration. At the time of the conveyance, Floyd was insolvent and Small had cause .to believe him so. Small conveyed his rights to Hagar, who foreclosed under the power of sale contained in the mortgage and bought in the title on Small's behalf. Hagar afterwards conveyed to Ring, and Small in a suit in equity against Hagar and Ring obtained a decree directing Ring to convey to him upon an accounting. After Floyd was decreed a bankrupt, his trustee in bankruptcy brought a suit in equity against Small and others to have the title to the premises decreed to be in Small in trust for him and a conveyance made to him. Small pleaded in bar that his title was derived from Hagar, in whose favor the land court of Massachusetts had rendered a decree declaring him entitled to the real estate, and that the trustee had due and sufficient notice of the proceedings in the land court. The court held that Small was not a bona fide purchaser in good
faith in reliance on the registered title and that the degree of the land court did not bar the suit in equity by the trustee in bankruptcy to enforce a re-conveyance of the land on the ground that it had been conveyed by the bankrupt as a preference. CARRIERS. (Injury to Passengers from Articles carried on car.) Colo. — In the case of Farrier v. Colo rado Springs Rapid Transit Ry. Co., 95 Pac. Rep. 294 a very peculiar question arose in regard to the liability of a street railroad for injuries to a passenger. On the day of the accident the defendant was running from Colorado Springs to Manitou a train of cars consisting of a motor and an open trailer car. The attachment between the two cars was an automatic coupler which allowed a play .of about an inch. When the cars were in motion there was a space of about eight inches between the hood or projecting top of the rear end of the motor car and the same part of the front end of the trailer car. A man carrying a long-handled hoe got on the car, taking a seat upon the front bench of the trailer. He put the hoe so that it rested upon the floor and the top of the handle rested against the front end or hood of the trailer, projecting several inches above the same. In the rocking motion of the cars caused by the rough tracks the handle was caught under the hood of the front car and broken, a piece thereof flying backwards through the trailer car, striking and inflicting injuries to plaintiff, a passenger who sat about the center of the car. It appeared that the conductor knew of the position of the hoe but did not request the owner to place it in any other position. The court held that the question whether the conductor's failure to cause the passenger to place his hoe on the floor or to carry it in some other position was negligence was for the jury. An interesting application of the doctrine that a carrier of passengers must take the utmost possible care to a case where the particular result was hardly foreseeable.
.
J.H.B.
