Notes of Cases*
ALIENS. (Naturalisation denied to married woman.) U. S. D. 0.—Harriet Rionda, born in Great Britain, married to a Spanish subject, dwelling in this country, applied for naturalization. The United States District Court in In re Rionda, 164 Fed. Rep. 368, held that as the Federal statute provides that an American woman who marries a foreigner loses her citizenship during the marital rela tion, it was difficult to see how a foreignborn married woman was in a position to acquire the rights given by naturalization. The application was denied. BANKRUPTCY. (Musicians are servants entitled to priority for wages.) TJ. S. D. 0.— The bankrupt in the case In re Caldwell, 164 Fed. Rep. 515, had operated a roof garden. Petitioners, who were musicians, for a period of three months had been drawing soft seductive melodies from their instru ments, but in that time had been unable to draw anything from the proprietor. They claimed to be servants within the meaning of the Federal Bankruptcy Act, entitling them to priority of payment of their wages. The United States District Court held that a musician, employed by the month at regular wages, while not a "menial servant," is still one within the Bankruptcy statute. BASTARDS. (Legitimation of by father married to woman not the mother.) Okl.— The father of an illegitimate child married a woman other than the mother, and sought to legitimize the child by adopting it into his family. To this arrangement the mother objected, asserting that she was entitled to the custody of her illegitimate child. Both parties appeared to be able to care for the child. In Allison et al. v. Bryan, 97 Pac. Rep. 282, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that the primary question was the preparation of the infant to confront the world in his later life. If he remained by his • Copies of the pamphlet Reporters containing full reports of any of these decisions may be se cured from the West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, at 25 cents each. In ordering, the title of the desired case should be given as well as the citation of volume and page of the Re porter in which it is printed.
mother's side the circumstances of his birth would be a blighting handicap to him, for which his mother's care would constitute no antidote. If he remained in his father's house he should be surrounded by conditions which would relieve him entirely of stigma, and give him a standing and a place in soci ety. Even though the mother objects, the father is entitled to the child's custody for the purpose of legitimation. BILLS AND NOTES. (Presentation of note over telephone.) N. Y. Sup. Ot.—The Negotiable Instruments Law of New York requires an instrument to be exhibited to the person from whom payment is demanded. In Gilpin v. Savage, 112 New York Supple ment 802, it appeared that a clerk of indorsee, a bank, called up the maker on the telephone and requested payment. Upon the maker's statement of his inability to pay he was informed that the note would be protested. An indorser who was sought to be held con tended that there was no presentation to the maker within the fair meaning of the statute. The Supreme Court of New York held that although the maker had a right to insist on the exhibition of the note to him he waived it by declining to pay on another ground. For every purpose the talk over the telephone was as effective as though the conversation had been within the walls of the house. CARRIERS. (Rebates to Standard Oil Co.) U. S. 0. 0.—In Standard Oil Company of Indiana v. U. S., 164 Fed. Rep. 376, the corporation was indicted for receiving con cessions from a carrier. It appeared that defendant's capital stock was $1,000,000, and its assets were not in excess of that sum. The majority of its capital stock was held by the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, whose capital stock was $100,000,000. The latter was a holding company. The offense was committed by transporting oil in 1642 cars under the illegal rate. In the indict ment and upon sentence, the use of each car was dealt with as a separate offense. Attach ing the maximum penalty, the fine aggregated $29,400,000. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals, however, held that the offense
