Latest Important Cases Montana Supreme Court thought that the severance of the note changed the instrument entirely, making a mere order for goods a negotiable promissory note, and that if the alteration was made with a criminal intent the defendant was properly convicted of forgery. Landlord and Tenant. Tenancy Created by Parol—Construction of Statute of Frauds. N. Y. Where there was only an oral agreement regarding a year's lease of an apartment, the lease not having been signed, and where the Statute of Frauds provided that a tenancy might lawfully be created by parol without the execution of a written lease, it was, never theless held by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, in the case of Sherry v. Proal, decided in April (N. Y. L. J. Apr. 29), that the verbal agreement testified to fell far short of a complete lease, nothing being dis cussed and agreed upon except the term for which the lease was to be made, the apart ment to be the subject of it, and the amount of rent. "Especially was there no agreement as to when and how the rent should be paid, or what covenants and conditions should be incorporated into the lease." Measure of Damages. Neighborhood Bene fits—Tunnels. Mass. In the case of Fifty Associates v. City of Boston, decided May 19, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the plaintiff should have been allowed damages due to the physical injury done its building by the con struction of the East Boston tunnel. In sus taining the plaintiff's exceptions, it held that the city had been improperly allowed to have the fact of the construction of the tunnel and station taken into account as a benefit to the premises, in estimating the damages, as the station was under the statute a neighborhood benefit, and not a benefit peculiar to the plain tiff's estate. Monopolies. Refusal to Sell Not a WrongNo Restraint of Trade. N. Y. Chief Justice Cullen in the New York Court of Appeals confirmed the judgment of the Appellate Division May 11, dismissing the complaint in the case of Locker v. American Tobacco Co. (N. Y. L. J. May 19). It is an inherent right of a corporation to refuse to sell to any particular individual, was the sub stance of this decision, and the refusal of the American Tobacco Co. to sell would become
303
illegal only when offered in pursuance of a combination of several persons making il legal an act which if done by one person would be legal. A corporation cannot be deprived of the right to refuse to sell, simply because of the magnitude of its business or its wealth. Monopolies. Forfeiture of Corporate Char ters—Missouri Anti-Trust Law. Mo. In Missouri v. Standard Oil Co., 116 S. W. Rep. 902-1062, the Standard Oil Co., the Waters-Pierce Oil Co., and the Republic Oil Co. of New York were convicted of violating the anti-trust laws of Missouri (Rev. St. 1899, c. 143 [Ann. St. 1906, §}8965, 8992]). One particular point of this decision was discussed with reference to the Waters-Pierce Oil Com pany, which is a domestic corporation. A judgment of ouster was rendered against it, but was ordered suspended on condition that the company sever all connection with the other corporations. In attempted compliance with the judgment, the directors of the com pany adopted a resolution protesting that it had never consciously or knowingly violated any of the laws of the state, but that it accepted the terms and conditions of the decree. Absolute ouster was thereupon denied, Judge Woodson dissenting on the ground that this resolution was not only a failure to comply, but tended to show that the company was not able or was not in clined to sever the trust relations and in fact comply. Patents. Separability of Claims— Entire Domestic Patent Need Not Expire with For eign Patent.—Combinations. U. S. An important patent decision was handed down by the United States Supreme Court April 19 in the case of Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co. (L. ed. adv. sheets April term p. 495). The Court held that all the claims of a domestic patent do not necessarily expire with a foreign patent because of the provisions of section 4887 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3382), but only such claims as are embodied in the foreign patent. Consequently, where one Emil Berliner had patented in several foreign countries a sound-reproducing appara tus, and had afterward patented it in the United States, the foreign patents having ex pired, but the term of the United States patent not having yet run out, and where a combination and not a function of a machine was embodied in one of the claims of the
