« ПретходнаНастави »
Costs are not to be imposed as a condition to grant of new trial for error of the court.-Maxon v. Gates, Wis., 88N, W. Rep. 54.
167. PARTITION Liability for Rents.- Defendant in partition held liable to plaintiff for rents accruing pending appeal and before sale on the basis of the rental value of the property.-Kalteyer v. Wipff, Tex., 65 S. W. Rep. 207.
168. PARTNERSHIP--Application of Firm Property to Individual Liability.-A partner cannot apply part. Dership property to his individual liability without consent of partner.-Ulrich v. McConaughey, Neb., 88 N. W. Rep. 150.
169. PATENTS - Accounting for Infringement of Dormant Patent.-Where a patent has lain dorinant for 15 years, and has been infringed by defendant for 7 years with the knowledge of complainant, and without a word of protest, a decree for an accounting should not be granted.-Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. New York Air Brake Co., U.S. C.C., X. D. N. Y., 111 Fed. Rep. 741.
170. PERJURY-False Statements Under Oath Which is Illegally Required.-Under Rev. St. $ 4321, recorder held not authorized to swear an applicant for a mar. riage license and to receive his testimony as to the consent of the girl's parents; and hence false testimony under such circumstances is not perjury, within section 2033.-State v. Carpenter, Mo., 65 S. W. Rep. 255.
171. PERJURY-Inducing Anotber to commit Perjury. -The alleged fact that a person was induced to coinmit perjury by accused may be established by his un. corroborated evidence.-State v. Renswick, Mon., 98 N. W. Rep. 22.
172. PERJURY – Proving Record of Testimony.-On a prosecution for perjury in falsely testifying on a cer. tain prosecution, held essential that the existence of such prosecution be proved by the record, and not by oral testimony of the clerk of the court.-Whittle v. State, Miss., 30 South. Rep. 722.
173. PLEADING-Inconsistent Pleas.-A general denial and a plea of justification held inconsistent in an action for damages for personal abuse and personal in. jury.-Turnbow v. Wimberly, La., 30 South. Rep. 747.
174. PLEDGES-Partles on Foreclosure.-On foreclog. ure of pledged stock, an assignee of the pledgor is a necessary party.-Brown v. Hotel Assn. of Omaha, Neb., 88 N. W. Rep. 175.
175, PRINCIPAL AND AGENT Repudiating Agent's Agreement.-A principal cannot retain fruits of agent's contract and repudiate agreement.-Plano Mag. Co. v. Nordstrom, Neb., 88 N. W. Rep. 164.
176. PROCE88-Service of Summons Against City.-A summons against the city was properly served on the mayor and on the secretary of the board of aldermen. -Loughran v. Clty of Hickory, N. Car., 40 S. E. Rep. 46.
177. PUBLIC LANDS – Jurisdiction of State Courts.State court will assume jurisdiction of disputes to right of possession of government lands.-Mathews y. O'Brien, Mion., 88 N. W. Rep. 12.
178. RAILROADS-Failure to Construct Plank Crossingg.–Fallure of a railroad company to construct cer. tain plank crossings held not to work a forfeiture of the right of way under the terms of the grant.-Gratz v. Highland Scenic R. Co., Mo., 65 8. W. Rep. 223.
179. RAILROADS-Use of Track as Walkway.-In an action against a railroad company for the killing of a person on the track, evidence that the track is used by the public as a walkway is admissible.-Hord v. Southern Ry. Co., N. Car., 40$. E. Rep. 69.
180. RAILROADS - Using Track as Walkway.-In an action against a railroad company for injuries to a person on the track, evidence that the track at the place in question was much used as a walkway by the public was properly received. --McCall v. Southern Ry. Co., N. Car., 40 8. E. Rep. 67. 181. RECEIVING STOLEN GOOD8-Proof of Similarity.
-In a prosecution for receiving stolen money, money found in the defendant's possession at the time of his arrest held admissiblein evidence against him, where corresponding with that lost by the prosecuting witnega.-Polin v. Stute, Tex., 65 S. W. Rep. 183.
182. REFERENCE Conclusiveness of Findings.Where a case is tried by referees, and no exceptions are filed to their report, the findings stand as the up. challenged verdict of a jury.-State v. Standard Oil Co., Neb., 88 N. W. Rep. 175. * 183. RELEASE - Terminating Obligor's Liability. Release of bond by obligee held not to terminate obligor's liability for the payment of a sum of money required by the bond to be paid a third person.Eitscheid v. Baker, Wis., 88 N. W. Rep. 52.
184. REMOVAL OF CAUSES - Foreign and Domestic Corporations as Plaintiff.-An action against a railroad company cannot be removed to the federal court, where part of the plaintiffs are foreign corporations and part domestie.-Dobson y. Southern Ry. Co., N, Car., 40 S.E. Rep. 42.
185. REPLEVIN-Judgment for Value Against Plaint. ff.--Plaintiff in replevin, who has disposed of the property, cannot complain that judgment is for the value of the property only.-Ulrich v. McConaughey, Neb., 88 N. W. Rep. 150.
186. REVENUE-Construction of Revenue Law.-The rule requiring a strict construction of criminal stat. utes is inapplicable to revenue law.--State v. Carter, N. Car., 40 S. E. Rep. 11.
187. ROBBERY-Bad Allegation of Ownership.-An indictment for robbery, which alleges that Ris the owner of the property stolen, is bad, where the property actually belonged to R's employers.-State V. Morledge, Mo., 65 S. W. Rep. 226.
188. SCHOOL AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS Liability of Superintendent.-A county school superintendent held not liable for mistaken performance of oflicial duty involying the exercise of discretion.-Gridley School Dist. of Butte County v. Stout, Cal., 66 Pac. Rep. 785.
189. SEAMEN – Imprisonment to Coerce Service.Since the passage of Act Dec. 21, 1898, 2 Supp. Rev. St., p. $97, the imprisonment of a seaman in a port to coerce him to perform a contract for service on a ship, is illegal, and a violation of his personal rights, which entitles him to damages.-The South Portland, U. S. D. C., D. Wash. 111 Fed. Rep. 767.
190. SHERIFFS AND CONSTABLES- Failure to Return an Execution.-Under ky. St. $ 1716, an action against a sheriff for failing to return within 30 days from the return day an execution issued from another county was properly brought in the county whence the execution issued.--Adams v. Simmons, Ky., 65 S. W. Rep. 152.
191. SHERIFFS AND CONSTABLES – Releasing Levy on Untrue Statements of Debtor.-In an action for con. version by releasing levy on exempt property, it is no defense that the inventory and oath of debtor were untrue.- McCormick Harvesting Mach, Co. v. Dunn, Neb., 88 N. W. Rep. 159.
192. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE-Offer of Performance.Equity will not compel parties to sign contracts, nor compel specific performance of contracts, unless plaintiff shows full performance or offer to perform.Kulberg v. Georgia, N. Dak, , 88 N. W. Rep. 87.
193. STATUTES-Journal Entries as to Vote on Bill.As the constitution requires that on the voting on a bill before the legislature the ages and noes shall be entered on the journals, either the noes must be on the journal, or it must affirmatively appear that there were none.-Commissioners of New Hanover Co. v. De Rosset, N. Car., 40 S. E. Rep. 43.
194. STATUTES--Passing Act Under Different Titles.Pub. Acts 1901, No. 235, relating to the examination and licensing of barbers held invalid, because passed in the two houses under different titles.-Fillinore v. Van Ilorn, Mich., 88 N. W. Rep. 69.
195. STATUTES--Subject Not Properly Stated in Title. -Comp. St. ch. 13, art. 2, & il, relating to the election of county assessor, in cities of inore than 25,000 and less than 40,000 inhabitants, held unconstitutional because not contained in the title.-Haverly v. State, Neb., 88 N. W. Rep. 171.
1946. STIPULATION-Validity of Admitted Judgment.-A stipulation admitting the rendition of a judgment the basis of a suit does not preclude the introduction of the whole record to determine its validity.-Rogen. berger v. Gibson, Mo., 65 S. W. Rep. 237.
197. STREET RAILROADS-Consent of Abutting Owners to Railroads.-Before a city can consent to an ordi. nance authorizing a railway in a street, the consent of a majority in interest of abutting owners must have been filed.-Currie v. City of Atlantic City, N. J., 50 Atl. Rep. 504.
198. TAXATION--Contesting Tax Title.-Ag a condi. tion precedent to contesting the title to land pur. chased at a tax sale, the claimants must pay the taxes due thereon.-McMillan v. Hogan, N. Car., 40 S. E. Rep. 63.
199. TAXATION-Different Entries of Assessment.The validity of the taxes on personalty is not affected by the fact that part of the defendant's property is entered on one page of the assessor's book and part on another page.-State v. Stamm, Mo., 65 8. W. Rep. 242.
200. TAXATION- Franchises.- The franchises of a street rallroad appurtenant to the use of its property held not subject to a separate tax.-Dallas Consol. Electric St. Ry. Co. v. City of Dallas, Tex., 65 S. W. Rep. 201.
201. TAXATION-Notice to Delinquent Before Sale.Where notice to delinquent taxpayer is not given as required by the constitution, a sale for taxes there. under will be null.-Foreman v. Hinchcliffe, La., 30 South. Rep. 762.
202. TAXE8-Sale at Low Figure.-A sale for taxes for 96 cents in excess of taxes, with interest and penalty, held to render the entire gale void.-Lee v. Crawford, N. Dak.,88 N. W. Rep.97.
203. TAXATION Stocks in IIand of Executors. Stocks and bonds of a testator, in the hands of executors as trustees after termination of their duties as executors, should be assessed for municipal taxes at the respective domiciles of the executors.-Millsaps v. City of Jackson, M188., 30 South. Rep. 756.
204. TAXATION-Validity of Proceedings.-The fact that the pleadings show that two contiguous lots were 1 89088ed, taxed, and sold together hold not to render the tax proceedings illegal.-Pettibone v. Fitzgerald, ieb., 88 N. W. Rep. 143. 205. TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES-Right of Rival oinpanies to Occupy Same Street.-A telephone com. 'yany occupies the streets in a city with its lines, sub. ect to the equal privilege of others subsequently granted the same rights, unless serious injury will be caused thereby to the operation of its own line.Louisville Home Tel. Co. y. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co., U. S. C. C. of App., Sixth Circuit, in Fed. Rep. 663.
206. TENANCY IN COMMON-Entry by the Tenant.Entry by one tenant in common is not an entry at all, where there is an actual ouster.-Beall v. McMenemy, Neb., 88 N. W. Rep. 134.
207. TRESPASS -Homestead Entrymap.-A homestead entryman in possession may sue a subsequent tres. passer to recover damages in cropping the land.Mathews v. O'Brien, Minn., 85 N. W. Rep. 12.
208. TRIAL-Defendant Testifying on Behalf of Plaint. iff.- Where defendant has testified on behalf of plaint. lif, plaintiff is not bound by his testimony, though un. favorable.- Town of Denver y. Myers, Neb., 88 N. W. Rep. 191.
209, TRIAL-Informing Jury as to Special Questions. -Giving of general instructions calculated to inform
jury how to answer questions in a special verdict in order to enable party to recover beld reversible error, - Byington v. City of Morrill, Wis., 88 N. W. Rep. 26.
210. TRIAL-Proper Instruction.-An inartuction in substance embraced in the main charge is properly refused.-San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Skidmore, Tex., 65 S. W. Rep. 215.
211. TRIAL-Rullpg in Nonsuit.-Under Acts 1901, ch. 594, a defendant who introduces evidence after mor. ing for a nonsult cannot, on appeal, assign as error the court's ruling thereon.-McCall v. Southern Ry. Co., N. Car., 40 S. E. Rep. 67.
212. USURY-Defense.- Where defense of usury is set up as originating in one of two contracts sought to be enforced, it is error to treat both contracts as usuri ous.-Harn v. American Mut. Bldg. & Sav, A980.,Ten., 65 S. W. Rep. 176.
213. VENDOR AND PURCHASER-Bond for Title.-Å vendee,holding a bond for title, is the equitable owner of the land, and on his death it descends to his heirs. -Love v. Butler, Ala., 30 South. Rep. 735.
214. VENDOR AND PURCHASER-Oompensation for Im. provements Alter Forfeiture.- Where defendant went into possession under a contract to purchase, he is not entitled to compensation for improvements after he forfeits his contract.-Coleman v. Stalnacke, s. Dak., 88 N. W. Rep. 107.
215. WAREHOUSEMEN - Transfer of, Warehouse Re. ceipt.-The transfer of a warehouse receipt issued under Hill's Ann. Laws, $ 4201 et seq., leaves no at. tachable interest in the assignor. - Adamson . Frazier, Oreg., 66 Pac. Rep. 810.
216. WATERS AND WATER COURSES- Cutting off Per. colating Waters.-Where a landowner dug a ditch on his own land, and thereby cut off percolating waters, which formed a spring on adjoining land, the damage occasioned to the adjoining proprietor was damnnm absque injuria.-Miller v. Black Rock Springs Imp. Co., Va., 40 S. E. Rep. 27.
217. WATERS AND WATER COURSE8-Extending Right of Water Company.-An ordinance extending right of water company to exercise its franchise free from city's option to purchase, without compensation, with out submission of question to a popular vote, is for. bidden by Comp. St. 1897, ch. 128, § 19.- Popiston v. Moores, Neb., 88 N. W. Rep. 128.
218. WILLS-Contract for Testamentary Provision.Where a person contracts to make provision in bis will in settlement of a claim against him,'and does so, there is no ground on which to base a subsequent claim under the agreement against his estate.-Drink house v. Merritt, Cal., 66 Pac. Rep. 785.
219. Wills-Presumption of Widow's Election to take Under Will. – A widow, suing to enforce pro visions of the foreign will of her husband in her favor, will be presumed to have elected to take under such will.-Waterfield v. Rice, U. S. C. C. of App,, Sixth Cir. cuit, 111 Fed. Rep. 625,
220. Wills-Remuinder Unaffected by Power of Ap. pointment.- A devise to testator's wife for life, and then to be divided among my children, or otherwise, as she may deem best," creates a vested remainder in the children living at testator's death, unaffected by the power of appointment.-Lantz v. Magsie, Va., 40 8. E. Rep. 50.
221. WITNESSES -Declaration of Testator. - Under Civ. Code Prac. $ 606, subsee. 1, & widow who is con. testing the will of her decased busband may testify ag to declarations made by him during the marriage.Murphy's Exr. V. Murphy, ky., 65 S. W. Rep. 165.
222. WITNESSES-Impeachment by Evidence at For. mer Trial.- That a party testified otherwise in a for. mer action held to go only to his credibility.-Hahn v. Bettingen, Minn., 88 N. W. Rep. 10.
223. WITNESSE8-Incompetency.- A judgment of con viction reuders a witness incompetent.-Chambers v. State, Tex., 65 S. W. Rep. 192.
Central Law Journal. Wah. 557, that the fact that several differ
ent and independent agencies are employed
in the transportation of the commodity, ST. LOUIS, MO., MARCH 7, 1902.
some acting only in one state and some acting through two or more states, does in po
respect affect the character of the transacPOWER OF STATE TO REGULATE SHIPMENTS tion. They insisted, therefore, that the ore WITHIN THE STATE WHEN ULTIMATE DESTI shipped from the mine over the roads in NATION IS BEYOND ITS BOUNDARIES. A question, destined for lower lake ports, was very important decision on the power of a
interstate commerce, notwithstanding the state to regulate charges on shipments
fact that one of the instrumentalities of that within the state where intended ultimately shipment was an independent railroad comto be transferred to another state, was re
pany, whose railroad was wholly within the cently handed down by the railroad and
state, and that as to all such traffic the state warehouse commission of Minnesota in wbat
commission of that state was without juris. is known as the Iron Ore Rate Case. Tbe
diction to fix a rate. question presented involved the power of the The Daniel Ball case was decided in 1870. commission to require certain railroad com In this case action was instituted against the panies of that state to post a tariff of the steamer Daniel Ball for doing business charges for the transportation of iron ore without a federal license. The boat was from points on their lines in Minnesota to engaged in
engaged in navigating the Grand river their respective terminals at the docks upon
between Grand Rapids and Grand Haven, a the shore of Lake Superior at Two Harbors port on Lake Michigan, carrying goods desand Duluth. The general object of tbis pro
tined for otber states and transporting up ceeding was the reduction of rates for the the river goods brought within the state from transportation of iron ore within the state. without its limits. The court held tbat the The respondent railroad insisted that all ore mere fact that ber agency in the transportashipped to such docks on their roads was tion was entirely within the limits of the destined either immediately or ultimately to state did not prevent ber from being an points outside of the state of Minnesota, interstate carrier as to goods destined for and on that ground denied the jurisdiction other states. Justice Field makes a strong or power of the commission to regulate or argument in voicing the opinion of the court in any manner control the rates for such in this case : sbipments.
“It is stated that, if the position here asIt appeared from the evidence that there sumed be sustained, there is no such thing as was no market for iron ore in Minnesota, and the domestic trade of the state ; that congress certainly not any to which the ore could may take the entire control of the combe shipped profitably, after consigned merce of a country, extend its regulations to the ore docks of the harbors mentioned, to tbe railway within a state on which grain and that every shipment of iron to those or freight is transported to a distant market. docks was loaded on the cars at the mines We answer that we are upable to draw any with the intention that it should ultimately clear and definite line between the authority of pass through the ore docks into vessels
congress to regulate an agency employed in bound for ports outside the jurisdiction of commerce between the states when that this state. The commission, however, held agency extends through two or more states, that all shipments directly consigned to points and when it is completed entirely witbin the without the state were interstate commerce limits of a single state. If its authority and over
such they disclaimed juris. does not extend to an agency in such comdiction. But as to all shipments to the merce, when that agency is confined within ore docks at Two Harbors without any fur the limits of the state itself, its entire auther definite destination, the commission thority over interstate commerce may be claimed the right to regulate the tariff. defeated. Several agencies combining, each The respondents relied on the doctrine
the doctrine taking up the commodity transported at the laid down in the case of The Daniel Ball, 10 boundary line at one end of each state, and
leaving it at the boundary line at the other end, was discharged from employment pursuant to a the federal jurisdiction would be entirely conspiracy between defendant and others gives ousted, and the constitutional provision
bim no right of action where defendant had a
right to terminate the employment at any time, would become a dead letter."
it being for an indefinite period. There is no Six years later the supreme court held doubt of the correctness of the court's decision than an act of Wisconsin “relating to rail in this case. An employer can discharge an emroads and telegraph companies in the state
ployee on any ground or on no ground and with of Wisconsin” was confined to state com
his reasons, neither the public nor third persons
are concerned. Brewster v. Miller, 101 Ky. 368, merce and that until congress acted in ref
a similar case. Certain undertakers of erence to the relations of such companies Louisville entered into an agreement not to acto interstate commerce, the regulation of cept employment from a person who was indebted their rates, so far as they were of domestic to one of them. Miller refused to serve Brewster concern, was within the power of that state,
because he was indebted to them for previous
service. The other defendants refused for the notwithstanding the fact that sucb traffic
reason that he had not paid Miller. Brewster originated in other states. Peik v. Railway
sued for damages but the court denied bis right Co., 94 U. S. 164. To same effect Chicago, to recover. Burlington & Quincy R. R. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. The second action was brought by the same 155. Both these cases, bowever, were over
plaintiff against the Sun Life Insurance Company ruled in Wabash v. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557, and
for procuring his discharge. The court held that
the fact that defendant under the agreement al. in Covington Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U.
ready set forth procured plaintiff's discharge, S. 217, which returned to the doctrine an gave him no right of action, where no coercion or nounced in The Daniel Ball case and ex deception was used. The court in this case states lended it to railroad as well as to water
the law correctly that "a party to a contract can
not maintain an action against a person who has transportation. In both of these cases last
maliciously advised and procured the other party mentioned, kowever, the decision
to break it, unless the person procuring the reached only on a bare majority of the breaking of the contract did so by coercion or court. This fact, together with the suggest deception, and thus caused the party to break ive language of certain expressions in the contract against his will, or contrary to bis the Social Circle case, 162 U. S. 184, and
purpose." See Bourdier v.
Macauley, 91 Kyi
135, 15 S. W. Rep. 60, 34 Am. St. Rep. 171. Lake Shore, etc. R. R. v. Obio, 173 U. S. 300, keeps the whole question still in doubt
TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES—RIGHTS AND and as far away from solution as ever.
PRIORITY OF OCCUPATION UNDER CONFLICTING
the telephone as of some other public utilities is NOTES OF IMPORTANT DECISIONS.
emphasized by the recent case of Cumberland
Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Home Telephone CONSPIRACY-RIGHT OF CIVIL ACTION FOR Co., 110 Fed. Rep. 593, in which it was held that CONSPIRACY RESULTING IN DISCHIARGE OF EM where a city bas granted to each of two telephone PLOYEE.-Two quite important questions in the companies the right to construct its line on the law of conspiracy are treated in the recent cases same side of the same street, neither grant being of Baker v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 64 exclusive, in the absence of any statute or ordiS. W. Rep. 913, and Baker v. Sun Life Insurance nance regulating the construction and operation Co., 61 S. W. Rep. 967. It appears from these of such lines the company which is prior in grant cases that three industrial life companies, the and in occupancy has the superior right, and the Sun, the Prudential and the Metropolitan,entered second company is not entitled to plant its poles into an agreement providing that anyone wbo within the space previously occupied by the first bad been in the employ of either of said com company, so that they will extend up through panies should not be employed by any of the its wires, or to occupy with its own wires the others for a period of two years. It will be no space beneath them, where it will impair the ticeable that this agreement bas practically all the safety or interfere with the efficient operation of requisites of a black-list.” Plaintiff, who was the first lis The court sald: in the employ of the Sun Life Insurance Co., "Priority in time, upon familiar principles, orsought and obtained a position with the Metro dinarily gives the superior equitable right, and politan. On objection, however, being made certainly it must be manifest that there is no under the agreement by bis former employer, equitable consideration upon which it can be plaintiff was summarily discharged. In the first justly and fairly held that the complainant shall action, which he brought against the Metropol be turned out of what it has appropriated, and tan, the court holds that the fact that plaintiff of which it is in lawful possession, in order that
the defendant sball be permitted to occupy the sary that it be enforced or followed. The court same thing. It seems to us clear that to allow the quotes with approval the language of the court defendant to thrust its poles up tbrough the lines in Wells v. Commonwealth, 21 Gratt (Va.), 500 : of the complainant, to have its employees pass "It is unquestionably the duty of an attorney and repass through those lines at will, and to to endeavor, to the best of his ability, by bis ad. require that the complainant's wires shall thereby vice and counsel, and by his conduct, to secure be subjected, and that the complainant's em to his client every legal right and remedy to ployees, to say nothing of other people, shall also which he may think him even probably entitled; thereby be subjected, to any dangers that might and if he fails to do it he is faitbless to bis trust, result from the electric fluid, would be a conflict and should be held morally and legally responsiand menace to both to which no just principle ble. And if he acts in good faith, if be demeans would require any of them to be subjected, un himself honestly, he is not responsible for au less under stress of a much greater necessity or error in judgment.
But when a man upon a much more urgent demand, based upon becomes an attorney-at-law he does not cease to the public needs, than appears in this case.” be a citizen, and when he assumes the relation of
First occupancy is, of course, the original founda attorney to a client he is not absolved from bis tion of title to all property, and this rule is ap obligations as a man and a citizen. An attorney, plicable to a grant of public franchises to private then, wbo would corruptly conspire with his individuals. In a recent and similar ca se (Paris client to obstruct the due administration of the Electric, etc. R. R. Co. v. Telephone Co., Tex. law, and to bring the authority of a court of jus. Civ. App., 27 8. W. Rep. 902,) the court said: tice into contempt by resisting and obstructing "The telephone company's franchise being the execution of its lawful decree, by whatever superior in point of time to that of the appellant, contrivance, even though it should be by procurand having exercised its right under its fran ing the interference of another court wbicb bad chise, appellant, in the absence of a superior no appellate or supervisory power or jurisdiction right, could not interfere with the use and enjoy of the subject-matter of the suit, in abuse of its ment of that privilege by stringing wires in such powers to enjoin and inbibit tbe officers of said close proximity to those of appellee as to impair court and other persons from the execution or the efficiency of appellee's telephone service." performance of said decrees, he is at least as
The statement of the rule in this case is well guilty of an offense against public justice, and of sustained by the recent authorities: Consolidated a contempt of court, as his client, and as justly Electric Co. v. Electric Light & Gas Co., 94 Ala. liable to summary punishment.” 372; Ruthland Electric Light Co. v. Marble City Electric Light Co., 65 Vt. 377, 26 Atl. Rep. 635,
DAMAGES – DISTINCTION BETWEEN LIQUI36 Am. St. Rep. 868; Bell Telephone Co. v.
DATED DAMAGES AND PENALTIES.-The Supreme Electric Light Co., 12 Ont. 571.
Court of Oregon has just recovered from a severe
engagement with that peculiarly difficult quesCONTEMPT-RIGHT OF ATTORNEY TO Coun tion as to when a sum specified in a bond or conSEL DISOBEDIENCE OF ORDER OF COURT.-Attor tract is to be regarded as a penalty or liquidated neys are officers of court sworn to support the law damages. The style of the case is City of Salem and its administration. A very delicate question V. Anson, not yet reported. From the brief of arises therefore whenever an attorney is called Mr. Webster Holmes, attorney for plaintiff, to upon to advise his client as to the validity of an whose kindness we are indebted for the ad. order of court, or of a writ issued under its au vance copy of the court's opinion, we are made thority, which affects the client's interests. It is, acquainted with the facts of the case.
It appears of course, his right to advise bis client if such or that one Franklin R. Anson entered into an der or writ is illegal or void; and, if such advice agreement with the city of Salem, undertaking is given in good faith, it will not render him li to install within the city an electric light plant able for contempt because of an error of judg on or before a certain date. He further agreed ment. The limitation on this right, however, is to pay the city of Salem five thousand dollars in well illustrated in the case of Anderson v. Comp the event that the undertaking was not satisfactois, 109 Fed. Rep. 971, where the court held that torily completed on the date specified. an attorney is guilty of contempt if he goes be breach of this ageeement, the city of Salem yond the right to advise in a matter of law and brought an action on the bond for the recovery actuated by a spirit of resistance, counsels or of the five thousand dollars as provided in the conspires with his client or others to disobey an contract. The court held the amount specified in order of court and obstruct its enforcement. In this the contract to be a provision for liquidated damcase a receiver appointed by the United States ages and not a penalty. The court relied on the District Court at Nome, Alaska, was ordered, on rule that where the actual damages in case of a appeal, by the circuit court of San Francisco, to breach of the contract must necessarily be speoturn over the property to appellants. The at ulative, uncertain and incapable of definite ascertorney of the receiver advised that the writ of tainment, the stipulated sum will be regarded as supersedeas was not valid because of lack of liquidated damages, and may be recovered as jurisdiction, and that therefore it was not neces such without proof of actual damages, unless the