568
THE GREEN BAG
the court, was found guilty of contempt, and a fine of $500 assessed as his punishment. He sued out a writ of error to reverse this judgment, but died before the case was submitted to the higher court. His death was suggested and the contention made that the proceedings thereupon abated, and that the fine was not recoverable against his estate. The court said that the order violated was merely an interlocutory one in a suit in equity; that the original action did not abate, and the fine should be considered as a charge against the estate in the hands of the personal representatives. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Unreasonable Penalties.) Wis. —- The Wisconsin Tenement House Act (Laws 1907, p. 910, c. 269) is declared unconstitutional in Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N. W. Rep. 885 for unreasonableness both in its require ments as to the structure of buildings and in the penalties imposed for its violation. It is con demned because of its provisions that lot line courts reaching from the street must be six feet wide for all buildings four stories or less in height, and that every tenement house must be equipped with substantially all the ordinary modern improvements as to water supply common to cities having public water and sewer systems. Its penal clause that every person who shall vio late the act, or fail to comply with its provisions, or who shall resist its enforcement, shall be subject to fine or imprisonment, is characterized as indefensible from any point of view. The speci fications and details enumerated in the act are so numerous that the court fear an ordinary person would be quite liable to be intimidated into sur rendering his right to use his real estate for tene ment house or lodging house purposes rather than take the chances, or if he did not make such surrender be intimidated into submitting to the demands of those charged with the enforcement of the law. The effect of enforcing such penalties as are imposed would be to take property without due process of law. This decision is one of many which adhere to the proposition that the question of reasonableness is a judicial and not a legislative question. The other side of the contention is well expressed by the Supreme Court of Nebraska in the case of Wenham v. State, 91 N. W. 421, when on page 424 it says: " The members of the legislature come from no particular class. They are elected from every portion of the state, and come from every avocation and from all the walks of life. They have observed the conditions with which they are surrounded, and know from experience what laws are necessary to be enacted for the welfare of the
communities in which they reside." The Wis consin court has throughout its history always showed a distrust of both legislatures and juries and a desire to check their seeming licenses — the distrust which the trained mind so often has of the untrained. It has in fact upheld but few police regulations, and perhaps has gone further than any other court in making the question of negli gence and contributory negligence one of law for the court rather than one of fact for the jury. It must be admitted, however, by every one that the statute in this case is extreme and unreasonable. It for instance applies to all cities and villages of the state whether possessing waterworks and sewerage systems or not, and practically forbids the building of even the modest two-story tenement in the small town and in the outskirts of the cities. ANDREW A. BRUCE.
CORPORATIONS. (Forfeiture of Franchise.) U. S. Sup. Ct. — In Delmar Jockey Club v. Mis souri, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 732, the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court is invoked to set aside the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court revoking the franchise of plaintiff in error. The objects set forth in the articles of incorporation •were the promotion of agriculture and improve ment of stock by public exhibitions of agri cultural products, holding of fairs and races, and the doing of other things incidental thereto. In answer to an information in quo ivarranlo the club entered a general denial followed by certain allegations, which the Missouri Supreme Court held to constitute a plea in confession and avoidance destroying the effect of the general denial and insufficient as a defense. Judg ment of ouster was granted on motion for judg ment on the pleadings. On writ of error to the United States Supreme Court it was claimed that the decision of the state court violated the federal constitution as finding defendant guilty of violation of its franchise without trial, but the contention was held to be so frivolous that the writ of error was dismissed. COURTS. (Conflicting Jurisdiction of Bank ruptcy Courts.) U. S. D. C., Ala. — A sharp conflict as to claim to jurisdiction as between Judges Jones and Hundley, both District Judges in the United States Court in Alabama, is dis closed in the two decisions of In re Steele, 156 Fed. Rep. 853, and 161 Fed. Rep. 886. It ap peared that on November i, 1907, while Judge Hundley was holding court in the Northern Dis trict of Alabama he appointed petitioner Steele as Referee in Bankruptcy for certain counties of the district. A few days later Steele qualified
