statement is made at the beginning of each subject and that, usually, a brief delineation of the subject matter of each section is given before any case or cases illustrative of such subject matter.

The work opens with an introduction to the study of Law, then takes up severally and comprehensively Contracts, Agency, Negotiable Instruments, Sales, Partnership and Corporations. The selection of cases is, on the whole, commendable, endeavor having apparently been made, so far as possible, to present more recent cases rather than the older ones, especially when the recent case discusses leading authorities and indicates their application. Another attractive feature of the work is the substantially satisfactory list of definitions of legal terms appearing at the end of the book for the information and convenience of the student.

ENEMY PROPERTY IN AMERICA.

This book, by Arthur Garfield Hays, of the New York City Bar, contains a general survey of the Trading With the Enemy Act and the decisions thereunder. It is divided in five parts:

Part I. A Survey of the Trading with the Enemy Act and Decisions.

Part II. A Treatise on the future disposition of alien property, with reference to the hearings before Congressional Committees. History and traditions of the United States, and international law on the subject of Enemy Property.

Part III. The Trading with the Enemy Act itself, with all amendments.

Part IV. A Digest of reported and unreported cases which have been decided under the Act.

Part V. The Treaty of Peace between the United States and Germany; the Sections of the Versailles Treaty which are applicable to enemy property.

The Winslow Bill, passed by Congress March 3rd, and the President's Proclamation supplementing the same, are contained in the book. This bill provides for the return of about $40,000,000 out of some 27,000 trusts.

We notice that many of the cases cited in this work are unreported, which makes available to the lawyer much that is valuable and practically unobtainable by the average practitioner. The author says that his work is a compilation. "The attempt has been made to gather together material; not to present a point of view." And he modestly adds: "The situation is made clearer when it is said, that

the compiler, who has been at work on the subject for a considerable time, is even now doubtful as to whether his work is complete." We think that this frank statement is some evidence of the painstaking, laborious care which the book itself indicates has been expended in its preparation.

Here are a few of the questions put by the publishers in announcing the book, and which the book answers:

If you have an American client with claims against a German, can you have recourse to the fund in the hands of the Alien Property Custodian, or must you apply to the Mixed Claims Commission?

Does it make a difference whether the debt is liquidated or unliquidated?

If the German property or claim has not been seized by the Alien Property Custodian, can you sue today?

What would be the effect on such claim of a demand by the Alien Property Custodian for such property?

If you have an American client who was indebted to a German in Marks, can he recover from the Alien Property Custodian any excess over the present rate of exchange? How about interest?

The publishers are Matthew Bender & Co., Albany, N. Y. The price is $12.50.

FLYS AND HOT WEATHER

According to Congressman Frank Millspaugh, of Canton, Mo., the following order was made by a county judge in that state back in the year 1858:

"On motion and on petition it is ordered that a review of a road be made running from Harrisville the nearest and best rout to Harmony Mission in Bates County. It is further ordered that John Parsons, David Hugt and James Porter be appointed reviewers of said road and that they review the same according to law and make their report if practicable at the August turm of said court and if not practible on account of hot weather and flys then to make their report at the Nov. turm without fail."

In the year 1839 this same court nonchal antly set aside an act of the state legislature concerning dramshops. This quaint old order reads:

"On motion it is ordered that the act entitled an act granting of license for dramshops, approved February the 13th, 1839, be and the same is hereby rejected by the county court at the August term, 1839."-Chicago Legal News.

17. Chattel Mortgages-Conditional Sales.-A chattel mortgage on a shifting stock of hardware and farm implements, under which the mortgagor was left in possession with power to dispose of same without any agreement that the proceeds from such disposition or any portion thereof should be devoted to the payment of the mortgage, is insufficient to support an action in conversion against an implement company, who, before the action, had taken possession of certain wagons and grain tanks sold to mortgagor under a conditional sales contract, notwithstanding such contract was unrecorded.-State Bank of Connell v. John Deere Plow Co., Wash., 212 Pac. 148.

18. Commerce-Interstate.-To take orders for goods in one state which are to be shipped from another state is an incident of interstate commerce and comes exclusively under federal control and is therefore not subject to the burden of state legislation.-Purchase v. State, Neb., 191 N. W. 677.

19. Telegrams, Interstate. As telegrams transmitted between points in South Carolina by way of points in another state were interstate messages, the state had no power to impose a penalty for delay in delivery of such messages.Smart v. Western Union Telegraph Co., S. C., 115 S. E. 319.

20. Constitutional Law. License to Practice Law. The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right, but is a privilege or franchise subject to the control of the Legislature, and limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications ascertained and certified as prescribed by law.-State v. Rosborough, La., 94 So. 858.

21. Corporations-Acceptance.-Where all the stockholders and directors of a railway corporation in fixing the value of property which the corporation was accepting in payment for one-half of its stock were acting in good faith, their judgment as to the value of the property was conclusive as to every one who participated in and had knowledge of the transaction, and who did not dissent from the action taken, under Or. L. § 6872. -Huson v. Portland & S. E. Ry. Co., Ore., 211 Pac. 897.

22. Directors.-That two corporations have a majority or the whole membership of their boards of directors in common does not necessarily render transactions between them void, in the absence! of other facts showing fraud, even as against stockholders, especially where the stockholders consent to all that is done.-Public Service Commission v. City of Indianapolis, Ind., 137 N. E. 705. 23. Place of Business.-Accepting an assignment of an obligation against a citizen of the state by foreign corporation is not doing business within the contemplation of the law.-Anglo-CaЛifornia Trust Co. v. Hall, Utah, 211 Pac. 991.

24. Place of Business.-Where a contract for the sale of goods was in the form of letters between the parties, and confirmation of the order] was sent from the seller's office in Chicago, the contract was made partly in the buyer's place of business and partly in Chicago, so that the buyer] corporation was not doing business within the State.-Gumbinsky Bros. Co. v. Smalley, N. Y., 197 N. Y. S. 530.

25.-Power Granted by Charter.-A corporation organized for "the manufacture of butter, cheese and other products of milk and cream, and to sell and dispose of said products when manufactured; and to carry on all the business essential thereto,

27. Illegal.-While a city ordinance forbidding maintaining a clock on the sidewalk is no defense to action for damages to such a clock and does not mitigate or lessen the damages from its injury or destruction, plaintiff in such an action cannot recover the value of its use as an advertisement; such use being forbidden by the ordinance. -Rohwedder-Freymann Jewelry Co. v. Riverside Swine Co., Mo., 246 S. W. 988.

28. Electricity-Res Ipsa Loquitur.-The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur held applicable in an action for injuries to a seven-year-old boy grasping a live wire hanging from an electric light pole to within a foot or two of the ground near the side of a public highway on which he was walking.Smith v. San Joaquin Light & Power Corporation, Calif., 211 Pac. 843.

29.- -Telephone Poles.-Where an ordinance requires telephone poles to be placed within or adjacent to the curb line of the street, the fact that the curb line and property line of an alley are the same, and that to place the poles adjacent to the curb line would cause cross-arms, ordinarily used on telephone poles, to extend over private property, is no justification for the company to set its poles out in the paving 21⁄2 feet from the curb line, for the company may either construct its cross-arms to extend from one side of the pole only, or procure from private owners the right or permission for the overhang of cross-arms over their property.-Harris v. Central Power Co., Neb., 191 N. W. 711.

30. Evidence-Bank Deposits.-A witness might testify that she owned part of a deposit of money in a bank left by a decedent, to overcome the presumption of ownership in the depositor, and such testimony did not contradict terms of any written instrument between the bank and the decedent.Phillips v. First Nat. Bank, Ala., 94 So. 801.

31. Fraud-By Representation.-Where plaintiff. a prospective buyer of furniture in rooming houses occupied by a tenant of defendant, who was the lessee of the premises, had no knowledge that defendant had assigned his interest to another party, and defendant represented that he had complete control of the houses and had a right to lease them and that the other party had no interest therein, plaintiff, in buying, had the right to rely on such representations without investigating them, the facts being peculiarly within defendant's knowledge.-Wescott v. Wood, Wash., 212 Pac. 144. 32. Fraudulent Conveyances Intention.-Although conveyance of property was calculated to and did hinder creditors in collecting their claims against grantor, yet the conveyance might be valid if it effected a bona fide transfer of the property specified upon a valuable consideration.-Porter v. Adams, Conn., 119 Atl. 358.

33. Highways-Negligence.-Contributory negigence of one colliding with the projecting handle of a gasoline pump while walking on the sidewalk was properly submitted to the jury, where it was dark at the time and the particular locality was unlighted.-Duffney v. Clarke, R. I., 119 Atl. 370.

Innkeepers-Check Room.-A hotel keeper operating a check room in conjunction with a dance for which admission was charged, and in guests were impliedly invited to leave wearing apparel, was under duty to exercise rea sonable care to protect such apparel.-Dallas Hotel Co. v. Blanchette, Tex., 246 S. W. 1065.

36. Insurance Account Books. Where the policy provides the company shall not be liable for loss or damage unless books and accounts are kept by the assured and are kept in such manner that the exact amount of loss can be accurately determined therefrom by the company, it is not necessary for assured to keep a set of books from which the exact items stolen can be ascertained. and it is not necessary that an itemized merchandise account be carried showing items of purchase and items of sale. It is sufficient compliance with this clause of the policy if a

man of

ordinary intelligence can ascertain from the books with reasonable certainty the amount and value of the goods stolen.-Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Wood, Okla., 212 Pac. 132.

37. Employment.-Within a provision of the constitution of a fraternal benefit society, which was made a part of the benefit contract, requiring extra payments by those employed in mines, the phrase "employed in mines," when strictly construed, as it must be, refers to the habitual or customary employment of insured, and not to casual or incidental employment, although the phrase liberally construed might have the latter meaning.-Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Craft, Ala., 94 So. 831.

38. -Place for Passengers.-The clause in an accident policy insuring against injuries while traveling as a passenger in a "place regularly provided for passengers" within any common carrier's public passenger conveyance refers to a place regularly provided for passengers by the common carrier within the conveyance, and is not limited to the place provided by the manufacturers of the conveyance, such as seats in the conveyance, so that, where insured was thrown from a public passenger automobile while sitting partly upon the upholstered arm of the rear seat and partly upon the door with his limbs in the car and his back protruding somewhat over the edge of the car, it was for the jury to determine whether he was riding in a "place regularly provided for passengers;" there being evidence that the driver of the car customarily carried passengers seated upon the doors.-Groves v. Great Eastern Casualty Co., Mo., 246 S. W. 1002.

39. Representation.-As cancer is of so serious a nature and so commonly results in shortening life that persons afflicted therewith are not regarded by insurance companies as proper insurable risks, if insured, who represented that he had never had cancer, was suffering therefrom when he made the application, his beneficiary cannot recover, under St. 1907, c. 576, § 21 (G. L. c. 175, § 186).-Smardon v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Mass., 137 N. E. 742.

40. Joint-Stock Companies and Business Trusts. -Title to Property.-A common-law trust association is capable of taking and holding title to property, and one taking its property may be guilty of embezzlement, under Burns' Ann. St. 1914, § 2285. Ridge v. State, Ind., 137 N. E. 758.

41.

Landlord and Tenant-Void Lease.-Where a lease required lessee to comply with all city and state regulations. and provided that lessee would not use the building leased for any purpose other than the wholesale drug business, and New York City Code of Ordinance, c. 10, article 1, § 1. subd. 44, article 2, § 20, and article 24, § 270, and section 272, subd. C, prevented the issuing of the necessary permit to transact such business, because the building was not fireproof and was occupied by other tenants, the lease was void.-Railroad Stores v. Fabyan & Co., N. Y., 197 N. Y. S. 815.

42. Master and Servant-Employee.-One who was hired by the owner of a lot to dig a trench in the street in front of the lot for a sewer connection, and who was to be paid by the day for his work, and was not shown by the agreement for employment or by any evidence to be free from the control of the lot owner, is merely an employee, and not an independent contractor, so that the lot owner is liable for his negligence.Spurling v. Incorporated Town of Stratford, Iowa, 191 N. W. 724.

was

43.-Liable for Acts of Independent Contractor. -Where an electric company's power line being replaced with new poles for wires, and leaves of a palm tree endangering an unprotected live wire were blown against the wire and broke it, the company was liab'e for injury to a boy who touched the broken wire, though the work was done by an independent contractor.-Smith v. San Joaquin Light & Power Corporation, Calif.. 211 Pac. 843.

44. Municipal Corporations-Bus Lines.-In an action against the city of New York for injuries to plaintiff resulting from a collision with a motor bus, a count in the complaint based on the theory that the operation of bus lines by the city in vio

lation of its charter was a nuisance, held not to state a cause of action.-O'Reilly v. City of New York, N. Y., 198 N. Y. S. 76.

45. -Diverting Rain Water.-Every public body is liable for resulting injury whenever it diverts rainwater from its natural channel, and casts it on private property.-Mitchell v. City of New Castle, Pa., 119 Atl. 485.

46. -Liability of Guest.-The driver of a team and one riding with him as his guest are each required to exercise the same degree of carethat is, ordinary care to avoid injury to themselves or to others.-Wolf v. Vehling, Ind., 137 N. E. 713.

47. -License.-The provision of the charter of the city of Jacksonville that the city council shall have power to pass ordinances "to license, tax and regulate hackney carriages, carts, omnibuses, wagons, and drays," the purpose of which was to vest in the city council control over these vehicles in the use of the streets, vested in the city council full power to regulate all the then known classes of vehicles using the streets, and the subsequent use of them by a new and different kind of vehicle warrants the extension of this power to the control of automobiles.-Taylor v. Roberts, Fla., 94 So. 874.

48.- -Street Sprinkling.-The sprinkling of the streets of a city by the city is an act connected with the maintenance of the public health, and therefore is a governmental function; and the city is not liable for the negligence of one of its employees, while actually operating the street sprinkler or water wagon for the purpose of sprinkling the streets. This is true, although the sprinkling is done by the waterworks department of the city, and although that department is operated by the city for gain and profit.-McCrary v. City of Rome, Ga., 115 S. E. 283.

49. Notaries-Not Liable on Bond.-A notary public, signing the jurat to an affidavit under the Sales in Bulk Act, knowing that the affiant is swearing falsely that there are no unpaid creditors, does not thereby become liable on his bond to a creditor unable to collect his judgment, as he does not certify to the truth of the statements and violates no law or duty as notary public.-Saevoff v. Steffen, Wash., 212 Pac. 158.

50. Principal and Agent-Authority to Collect.When an agent is intrusted with the custody of goods, which he delivers himself to the purchaser, there is implied authority to collect and receive payment therefor.-Boice-Perrine Co. V. Kelley, Mass., 137 N. E. 731.

51. Where Principal is Liable.-A principal is responsible for the acts of his agent within the apparent scope of his authority only where principal is responsible for such appearance of authority. Churchill Grain & Seed Co. v. Buchman, N. Y., 197 N. Y. S. 552.

52. Principal and Surety-Notice.-Where a contract for a future sale of goods is signed by the prospective vendor as creditor, and the prospective purchaser as principal debtor, and by sureties for such purchaser, whereby the obligation of continuing suretyship is imposed upon the sureties, guaranteeing payment for goods which the contract provides shall be furnished from time to time by the prospective vendor to the prospective purchaser, and the contract provides for weekly settlements for the goods furnished under the contract, but does not require that notice of any default in weekly paymenst shall be given by the creditor to the sureties, the securities are not released from liability to the creditor, or confined to the first weekly default, although such sureties are given no notice by the creditor of the original default, and are unaware thereof.-Georgian Co. v. Jones, Ga., 115 S. E. 490.

53. Railroads-Liable.-Contributory negligence of deceased driving a loaded automobile truck struck by a train running at an excessive speed of 40 miles an hour, without notice of its approach, and not visible until it came to a point 264 feet from the crossing as it came around a curve from behind a box car, when the front of his truck was 152 feet from the overhang of the engine, held for the jury. Chapman's Adm'r v. Hines, Va., 115 S. E. 373.

54.

Sales-Consideration.-Where an automobile buyer, knowing that a Liberty Bond given as part consideration was a permanent bond from which he had detached all interest coupons, did not disclose such fact to the seller and a bank clerk, by whom it was appraised as a temporary one, and the seller promptly rescinded the contract on discovering the mistake, no title passed, the sale being vitiated by the buyer's deceit, by which the seller was misled to his injury.-Applegarth v. Weintraub, Calif., 212 Pac. 36.

65. Workmen's Compensation Act-Amount of Damages. Where an employee suffers an injury resulting in permanent disfigurement of the head, and there is evidence showing the nature and extent of his injury, it is not necessary that direct evidence as to the amount of damages should be introduced in order to sustain an award of the Commission.-Bell Oil & Gas Co. v. State Industrial Commission, Okla., 211 Pac. 1042.

an

55. Representations.-That plaintiff when selling automobile tires to defendant, stated they where "better tires" than the tires of a competitor, who gave a 12,000-mile service guaranty on tires, held not a guaranty of 12,000-mile service on the tires plaintiff sold defendant; the words not being anything more than a mere "puffing" statement.-Callaway & Perkins v. Collier, Mo., 246 S. W. 966.

56. Warranty.-Under Personal Property Law, § 150, added by Laws 1911, c. 571, buyer can maintain an action against seller for damages for breach of warranty, though buyer has sold the goods to another.-Sand v. Garford Motor Truck Co., N. Y., 198 N. Y. S. 43.

57. Taxation-Acceptance.-The tax authorized by G. L. 1093, is not a tax on the property itself, but upon the right of succession to the property.— In Re Fulham's Estate, Vt., 119 Atl. 433.

58. Double Taxation.-The Legislature possesses the power to tax the capital stock of a corporation including every element that imparts value to the stock and at the same time to tax the shares of stock in the hands of the individual stockholders, even though that is double taxation, since the Constitution neither requires nor forbids double taxation.-Person v. Board of State Tax Com'rs, N. C., 115 S. E. 336.

59. Eleemosynary Institutions.-College dormitories are not subject to taxation if situated upon land detached from the campus, provided they are devoted to like use as if upon the campus.-State v. Carleton College, Minn., 191 N. W. 400.

60. Eleemosynary Corporations.-A hospital owned and conducted by a religious corporation is not exclusively "used for religious purposes." so as to be exempt from taxation, under Const. art. 9, § 3, even though it was maintained for charitable purposes.-People v. St. Mary's Roman Catholic Hospital, Ill., 137 N. E. 865.

61.-Family Unit.-Under St. 1921, 71.05. treating income of members of family as a unit. on which taxes are to be paid by husband or head of family, and section 71.09, requiring trustees, etc., to make return of income received for ward, together with income of the ward from other sources, when married woman has income from trust estate, the trust and other income must be added to that of the husband, and the tax, after deduction of the exemptions, assessed against the husband on the balance; the payment by the trustee being considered only as a credit on the total amount of the husband's tax.-State v. Cary, Wis., 191 N. W. 495.

62. Warehousemen-Liens.-The common-law lien of a warehouseman extends, in the absence of agreement or statute. only to a public warehouseman-that is, one who carries on the business of receiving and keeping goods for compensation. Mitchell v. Standard Repair Co., Pa., 119 Atl. 410.

63. Waters and Water Courses-Waste.-A vested right to waste water cannot be acquired, and as Laws 1919, c. 67, does not interfere so long as water is used in accordance with the terms of a prior decree, the matter for determination being only whether the user is wasting water, the procedure under the act is not an interference with a vested right.-Eden Irr. Co. V. District Court, Utah, 211 Pac. 957.

64. Wills-Vested Remainder.-A will giving to a trustee for the use of the testator's daughter all his estate, directing the trustee to keep and manag the property for the daughter "for her benefit and to the heirs of my body, she having the possession and control of the property during her life," held to create a vested remainder in the daughter, she being the only heir.-Clardy V. Clardy, S. C., 115 S. E. 603.

67. Exemptions.-In an action against the federal Railroad Administration for death of an employee working in an unsafe roundhouse pit. where the complaint averred that the railroad company gave notice to its employees to except itself from the operation of the state Workmen's Compensation Act, before the railroad was taken over by the government, such averment of the railroad company's election not to operate under the act rendered it unnecessary to aver as to whether deceased had knowledge of the unsafe condition, the railroad company and afterward the Director General continuing terms of employment by General Order No. 1, being precluded by such election from the defense of contributory negligence and assumption of risk, as provided in Burns' Ann. St. Supp. 1918, § 8020t.-United States Railroad Administration v. Monahan, Ind., 137 N. E. 778.

68.--Independent Acts.-Where owner of a farm whose principal business was that of a housewife, leased her farm and employed claimant to tear down a building thereon and salvage the material for use in other buildings to be erected on the farm, she was not engaged in the business of demolishing a building and salvaging the material, within Workmen's Compensation Law, § 2. group 42.-Millard v. Townsend, N. Y. 197 N. Y. S. 702.

69.-Parent's Rights-In parent's proceeding for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended by Pub. Acts 1921, No. 173. for death of son, who until about eight weeks before his death had assisted his father on the farm. it was proper to consider the value of the son's services on the farm on the question of dependency.-Finney v. Municipality of Croswell, Mich.. 190 N. W., 856.

70.-Pecuniary Gain.-Under Workmen's Compensation Law, § 3, subd. 5, and section 11. an employer in a hazardous business for pecuniary gain, who is not under the Compensation Law. cannot avail himself, in action against him by injured employee, of the defenses of assumed risk or contributory negligence. Held, that a religious corporation selling burial privileges in its cemetery, as permitted by Religious Corporation Law. § 7, and devoting the net proceeds, as required by section 5 of the law, to religious or charitable purposes. was not conducting a business for "pecuniary gain"; hence in action against it by an injured employee it would not be deprived of said defenses because it had not come under the Compensation Law. Dillon v. Trustees of St. Patrick's Cathedral, N. Y., 137 N. E 311.

71. Waiver.-An employer, against whom a compensation award was rendered, by treating the Workmen's Compensation Act as valid, did not waive the right to question its constitutionality, as employer did not voluntarily invoke the provisions of this law, in view of section 10.-Robinson V Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co., N. Y., 198 N. Y. S. 99.

72. -Within Scope of Act.-An insurance solici tor and collector, working on salary and commission, and instructed to visit the home office each Thursday to make report and pay over collections, was in the "course of his employment," within the Workmen's Compensation Act, while going to the home office on a street car for that purpose.— Cook's Case, Mass., 137 N. E. 733.