Εικόνες σελίδας
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

combine in his single person the functions of Mr. | Central Park is strictly prohibited, and the Park George Lewis and Sir Charles Russell. Iu England, police enforce the law, you know. If he had tried to where this is impossible, the number of men who go swim he would have been clubbed to death.”—Texas through the double mill is comparatively limited, but | Siftings. those who do have generally every reason to be grate

It is not unusual for spinster testatrixes to provide by ful to their early energy. Certainly Sir Charles Russell

their wills for their domestio pets. Mr. Justice Chitty owes a great deal of his “ all-round" skill to having

the other day had a case before him where a lady had swung round the circle of legal training and legal

made provision for the maintenance of several dogs experience.

during their lives; and the learned judge remarked Sir Charles Russell is endowed with one faculty

that the proper way of making such gifts was to give which we are uncertain whether to characterise as a

an annuity to a person, to cease at the death of the blessing or a curse. He is a marvelous, a fatally

animal. He also said that doubts had often crossed marvelous, judge of wines. Perhaps no other English

his mind as to whether such gifts might not violate man living has the same keen and delicate perception of the finest shades and gradations of difference be- that the life contemplated in the rule against perpetu

the rule against perpetuities. There can be no doubt tween one very excellent champagne and another. Is

ities is the life of a human being, and it apparently this, we may ask ourselves contemplatively, a very

could not be a violation of the rule to make a gift to en viable gift? It does indeed put a man really endowed

a living dog or cat, as the duration of life of such with it - we all think ourselves to be absolute author

animals is usually shorter than that of a human being. ities on the juice of the grape - upon a certain pinna

But take the case of an elephant. Would it be legal cle above his fellow-men; but at what a price? The

to give an annuity to a person to cease at the death of man who is less particular, who has been presented by

an elephant when, as is well known, an elephant's life nature with a less exquisitely sensitive palate, may

is far fonger than the life of a man?-Solicitors' Journal. never, perhaps, soar to such moments of ideal appreciation; but on the whole, his life floats in smoother If the quality of English beer is worth all the attenchannels. Any beverage that foams has its pleasant tion bestowed on it, the judgment of the Divisional possibilities for the light-hearted, easily-gratified Court in Crofts v. Taylor, is of national importance. reveller, upon whom Sir Charles Russell looks down There is little room for doubt as to the correctness of with half Olympian disdain. The man who can drink the conclusion arrived at. The argument turned on any liquor set before him, from the black Bibline of the meaning of the word “dilute," in section 8, subthe Greek poets to the raw red manslaughter served section 2, of the Customs and Ioland Revenue Act out to the luckless in Champagna wine shops, or the 1885, and if dictionaries and general usage left any inferior marking-ink, with the fringe of dirty foam on doubt on this point, it is met by the general words the top

ich may be tasted by the curious in Italian which follow, “add any matter or thing thereto.” The Austria, is not exactly an epicure, but he is more retailer who pours into strong ale “small beer," of likely to make himself happy, and to be the cause of many degrees lower specifio gravity, is clearly "adding happiness in others, than Sir Charles Russell with all some matter or thing thereto.” Any other construchis knowledge. Indeed it may be doubted whether tion than that which was adopted would, as Mr. Juspoor Sir Charles does not suffer more misery in the tice Grove pointed out, defeat the whole purpose of tasting of vintages that do not come up to his difficult the act. By section 4, the term “ beer" includes any standard than is at all compensated for by the moments liquor sold under that name which contains two per of rare felicity when he drinks delight of incomparable cent of proof spirit. If therefore it were held that crus with his peers. .

dilution with weaker beer is not an offense against To sum him up, Sir Charles Russell is one of the most section 8, the retailer, though forbidden to water his remarkable figures of our time. A great lawyer, a beer, would only have to water down one kind of beer great speaker, he has something of the universality of to the two per cent limit, and could then mix this liquor talents which lends so conspicuous a charm to some with any stronger beer without fear of the conseof the mighty figures of the last century. He is a quences. To all but the disciples of temperance it will politician, but he is also a man of the world. He is a be a satisfaction to know that we bave been saved from lawyer, but he is also a sportsman. He is skillful with such an anomaly as this. The doubt suggested in the the tongue, but no less skillful with his fists. Like course of the argument, which bristled with ingenious Baby Sylvester in Mr. Bret Harte's story he “slings an points, whether a decision against the appellant would ugly left” on occasion, as the annals of a certain not prevent a publican selling a mixture of two beers Dundalk election may record. His friends, admiring at a customer's request was disposed of by the answer, and envying these varied gifts, are naturally inclined that in that case the publican would mix as the agent to be enthusiastic; but perhaps their enthusiasm does of the purchaser. There is no difficulty in limiting not carry them so very far afield when in their zealous the act to the dilution of beer in bulk and before sale. - and perhaps sometimes slightly jealous — way they |-Law Times. nickname Sir Charles Russell the Admirable Crichton

A JAIL WINDOW. of the House of Commons.The Observer. [The best

[Suggested by a walk down Maiden Lane.) judge of wine who ever lived in America was probably the late Edwin P. Whipple, the distinguished author.

From out the grated window of a jail He could infallibly tell any kind of wine - any vin

Two faces looked with angry, evil glance,tage, it is said - by the bouquet. And if Oakey Hall

Two aged men's, — with tedious durance pale, did not write the foregoing article then we are no

And stamped with hatred, vice, and ignorance. judge. - ED.)

A morning-glory twined about the grate,

And lifted up its blossoms white and blue,

And as in sympathy with their hard fate,

Its inodest freshness pitifully threw. “Did you hear the sad news about Jinks?” asked Sweet emblem of God's love for mortals frail! Gus Snobberly of Charlie Knickerbocker. No, what

Which finds in hardened natures some faint leaven, is it?" "He was drowned while rowing a boat in And from the grievous ladder of a jail Central Park.” “Couldn't be swim?'' "That

Prays them to struggle, like the flower, toward heaven. wouldn't bave made any difference. Swimming in

I. B.

The Albany Law Journal.

ments in the extradition of fugitives. The conference served another most useful purpose in this, it

has called general attention to the subject, and ALBANY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1887.

cannot fail to do much toward persuading Congress to enact a general law, superseding the present

State statutes, which are violently in conflict in CURRENT TOPICS.

many important particulars, and obviating the ne

cessity of adopting any rules of practice, which are, THE Inter-State Extradition Conference was con

at best, only an expedient to serve until a general 1 vened in the city of New York, August 23,

law can be obtained. 1887. The governors of the following States and Territories were represented: California, Connecti Our table is flooded with opinions, arguments cut, Georgia, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michi- and communications about the inter-State comgan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New merce act. We have singled out for publication an York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode opinion by Judge Deady on the long and short haul Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin. The classes, and on passes to employees' families, as of chief justice of the Supreme Court of the District special interest. An argument by Mr. Clarence A. of Columbia was also represented. The governors Seward, on behalf of the Adams Express Company, of Georgia and Pennsylvania were represented by presents with ingenuity and force the reasons why three delegates each. Governor James A. Beaver the act should not be deemed applicable to such of Pennsylvania was chosen chairman, ex-Governor companies, John W. Stewart of Vermont, vice-chairman, and Goodwin Brown of New York, secretary. A commit- This journal has been repeatedly charged with tee was appointed by the chair to consider and report undue severity toward criminals. We are not upon the following matters: 1. Rules of practice aware that we have ever done more than to advise and forms. 2. Law having particular reference to the execution of the laws. Indeed we have been formulating an act to be passed by Congress which inclined to doubt the policy of continuing capital should take the place of the present State statutes. punishment, and have said so. In a sentimental The committee on rules of practice and forms made moment we ventured a few stanzas last week showa report which was unanimously adopted. A copy | ing that our spirit toward criminals is not vindicof the rules of practice adopted is published in an- / tive, and thereupon a very eminent scholar writes other column. The committee on law reported us: “ As for the old 'uns in jail, I'm afraid it'll take that they were unable, in the brief time at their dis- more than a morning-glory to transmute their vice. posal, to agree upon a proposed bill for introduc But who can tell?" tion in Congress, and recommended substantially as follows: That a committee of five be appointed The question in the Fisk-McGraw contest, conby the chair to draft a bill and furnish copies of cerning the validity of benefits conferred by will the same to the governor of each State and Terri- on Cornell University, is of great particular and tory, and to the attorney-general of each State, general importance. The General Term have held with the request that within thirty days they for- the provisions in question void because in excess of ward to the committee a statement of their views, the charter limitation of the value which the insti. together with any particular recommendation they tution may legally hold. It is contended, we unmay desire to make. That the committee there derstand, that notwithstanding this, nobody but after recast the bill and forward it to Congress, to- | the State can object; that the land does not degether with a proper memorial requesting its pas- scend. If this is really contended, we should supsage. The following are the committee: Ex-Gov- pose it to be unsound. The land must go someernor John W. Stewart of Vermont, vice-chairman, where at once; it cannot rest in the air; the coras a member ex-officio ; Judge W. W. Montgomery poration is prohibited to take it - not merely in of Georgia; Attorney-General W. S. Kirkpatrick of case the State finally decides that it shall not, but Pennsylvania; Attorney-General E. J. Sherman of absolutely and instantly by force of the statute, Massachusetts; Charles E. Prior of Ohio; and which enacts that it shall not; it must therefore deGoodwin Brown of New York. The accomplish- scend to the heirs or fall into a residuum. So far ment of two things was sought by the conference: as corporations of this State, in the case of the 1. The adoption of rules of practice to be observed Chamberlain Institute of Cattaraugus county, the by the governors of all the States and Territories, question is distinctly ruled by Chamberlain v. Chamgoverning demands only. 2. The adoption of a berlain, 43 N. Y. 439, where Allen, J., says: “Claimbill to be presented to Congress for enactment. In ing property and seeking the aid of courts to reach our judgment the practice rules adopted are vastly it, the corporation can rely only on the warrant superior to the rules in force in most of the States. I and authority conferred by law, and cannot claim They have the most important merit of applying to in transgression or excess of that authority. The a large number of States, thus avoiding many of statute permits the corporation to take property of the difficulties which have heretofore been experi-, a given yearly value, and prohibits the taking in exenced by reason of non-conformity with require-l cess of that value. * * * But here the estate

Vol. 36 — No. 11.

of the testator, not well disposed of by the will, de- | inal laws, but it seems to us that the appellate scends to the heir-at-law and next of kin, and the criminal court is too technical and lenient. In the question is, who has the better title of the two most hopeful view, a great part of Texas must long claimants? Doubtless the restriction upon corpo- continue a turbulent and dangerous place to live in rations is a governmental regulation, and one of pol- for people who do not go "well heeled” and are icy, and to be enforced by the government; but an not apt at getting out their "guns” in a hurry. If individual, whose interests will be affected by a anybody is disposed to look at it through a roseate transgression of the rule, may assert and insist upon medium let him read the reports of the Texas the limitation as a restriction upon the power of Court of Appeals. the corporation to take." So in Mc Cartee v. Orphan Asylum Society, 9 Cow. 437, it was held that a de- ! In connection with undue leniency to criminals, vise to a corporation not authorized to take by de we are reminded by Mr. Semmes' address at Saravise is absolutely void, and the land descends to toya of what we used to consider the best “ bull " the heir. By analogy this doctrine must apply to a in the books, namely, the provision in our statute devise in excess of authority to take. There seems of commutations of terms of imprisonment for good to be no doubt on this question so far as property behavior, that the act shall not apply to the case of situated in this State. The courts of Connecticut, any one imprisoned for life! Now it seems that Pennsylvania and Ohio however hold that a New the apparent impossibility of such an application York corporation, prohibited in New York, may has been overcome in Colorado, by a direction take by devise in those States. White v. Howard, to calculate the prisoner's probable life by the ta38:Conn. 342; Thompson v. Swoope, 24 Penn. St. 474; | bles, and after he has served a certain number of Am. Bible Soc. v. Marshall, 15 Ohio St. 537. To the | years and has behaved himself well, to let him out. same effect, Christian Union v. Mount, 101 U. S. 352. This is sentimentality run mad. It amounts simply Starkweather V. Am. Bible Soc., 73 Ill. 54, and to imprisonment for just so many years for crimes White v. Howard, 46 N. Y. 144, are to the contrary. deemed worthy of imprisonment for life. It takes

away the only theoretical reason of reformers for

urging imprisonment instead of hanging. We are A correspondent writes us: “Are you not a little

informed that Governor Tilden vetoed a similar act severe on Texas? A recent visit to the State con

in this State. vinced me of the popular errors concerning its civilization and social condition. I learned, to my

Our advice to lawyers about vacation has been surprise, that in many towns the percentage of

followed by at least two very high judicial dignitachurch members in good standing exceeded some

ries of this State, who attend base-ball matches of our best northern towns. I heard less profanity

together. Probably they find the benches rather and saw less intemperance than one might hear and

less easy than that which they are accustomed to see in towns and cities in Maine. Carrying con

sit on as magistrates. For ourselves, we never atcealed weapons is more condemned and more often |

tend a ball game without recalling an anecdote of punished than in most States of the Union. The

a celebrated Vermont judge, of whom one of the members of the bar compare favorably with those

“side judges ” once said that the former never of other States. I met some who are most accom

asked the latter his opinion more than once, and plished and learned men. The general moral tone

that was at the close of a tedious day's session, in the several towns and cities I visited seemed to

when he turned to him and said, “I ache like fury! me excellent.” Very likely, but the question is,

Don't you?” — or words to that effect. It strikes what is the general state of morals in comparison

us that the base-ball benches are fully as easy how- we will not say with old northern States — but

ever as the judicial bench is to Judge Potter about with other southern States, such as Alabama, for example? There are unquestionably many orderly

this time. Our base-ball devotees probably admire

the game as the only thing that is as uncertain as localities, much refinement, piety and intellectual ability in some localities, perhaps even more than

the common law. The treatment of the umpire by

the crowd, too, must remind them of the howl of in certain localities in Maine or Massachusetts; but what is the grand average? As Mantilini says,

the omniscient newspapers over some judicial de

cisions. But it is a great game - nothing like it. "what is the demnition total?” Can any reasonable person believe that there is a less aggregate of 'cursing and drunkenness there than on the average in the northern States? “Carrying concealed weap

NOTES OF CASES. ons is more condemned and more often punished " there, because there is more occasion to punish it, I IN Keyser v. Chicago & G. T. Ry. Co., Michigan and yet nearly everybody carries his “ weapon." 1 Supreme Court, June 23, 1887, the question of The very officers of the law carry them while prose- declarations of an agent as res gest was considered. cuting criminals for carrying them, because their The court said: “I think these statements of the lives would be unsafe if they did not. No doubt engineer, made at the place where the accident octhe orderly part of the community are making curred, and at the time he backed up the train and heroic and praise worthy efforts to enforce the crim- took the boy on, as to the circumstances and the reason he gave for the management of the engine | execution of his duties while passing over the road and train in approaching this boy, and how he when the plaintiff was injured, but during the encame to run upon him, were so connected with the | tire trip, and until he had made his report of the acts complained of as to become a part of the res same to Inslee, and of the circumstances of the acgestæ, and the testimony was properly received. cident which had occurred. It required less than There is more question in regard to his statements sixteen minutes to run from the place of the accimade to Inslee at Port Huron. It is true, it was a dent to Port Huron, and less than fifty minutes to part of the engineer's duty to give to Inslee a truth- make the run and his report to Inslee. He was in ful report of the accident, and all the circumstances the proper discharge of his duty all this time, havunder which it occurred, and from the time the ing the injured boy on the train until he arrived at boy was hurt until the train arrived at Port Huron Port Huron, and what he did and said in the disthe engineer and conductor had the child with charge of that duty, if no more than was required, them on the cars, and the company's liability for I think should be regarded as proper evidence proper care and safety of the boy continued, to against the company, so far as it had any materialsome extent, until the train arrived at that place, ity to the case. It was the statements thus made which was but three miles from where the accident to Inslee concerning the accident, and defendant's occurred. I do not understand that declarations agency in causing the injury, upon which the plaintby persons whose duty it is to make them, in order iff had most to rely. How far the statements of to constitute a part of the res gesta, are required to the agent are binding upon and competent to be be precisely concurrent in point of time with the given against the company, and to what extent they principal transaction. If they spring from it and are part of the res gesta, depends upon the circumtend to explain it, are voluntary and spontaneous, stances of each particular case, and I think the tesand are made at a time so near as to preclude the timony of Inslee, giving the statements of the enidea of design to misrepresent, they may be regarded gineer made at Port Huron, was properly received." as so nearly contemporaneous as to be admissible. See contra, Durkee v. Cent. Pac. R. Co., 69 Cal. 533; Scaggs v. State, 8 Sm. & M. 722; Insurance Co. v. | S. C., 58 Am. Rep. 562, and note, 565. Mosley, 8 Wall. 397; Commonwealth v. McPike, 3 Cush. 181; Harriman v. Stowe, 57 Mo. 93; Crook- In Cook v. Moore, 95 N. C. 1, an action brought ham v. State, 5 W. Va, 510; Boothe v. State, 4 Tex. on the 20th of October, 1883, on a judgment renApp. 202; Rex v. Abraham, 2 Car. & K. 550; Han- dered on the 20th of October, 1873, was held barred over R. Co. v. Coyle, 55 Penn. St. 402; Brownell v. | by the statute of limitations. The court said: Pacific R. Co., 47 Mo. 239; People v. Vernon, 35 Cal. “This rule as to the indivisibility of a day is never 49; Handy v. Johnson, 5 Md. 450; Carter v. Buchan. departed from except in those cases where quesnon, 3 Ga. 513; Mitchum v. State, 11 Ga. 633; Court- tions as to the priority of claims arise, depending ney v. Baker, 2 Jones & 8. 529; O'Connor v. Chicago, upon the order of events occurring on the same M. & St. P. R. Co., 27 Minn. 166; Amil v. Chicago, I day. But even in those cases where the general B. & Q. R. Co., 30 N. W. Rep. 42; State v. Horan, rule applies, as when statutes of limitation fix the 20 id. 905; Lund v. Tyngsborough, 9 Cush. 36. I periods which date from the time of the accrual of think this view will be found, upon an examination the causes of action, there is some diversity in the of the later authorities, to be sustained, and such I decisions of the courts, whether the day of the acbelieve to be the tendency of our own decisions, crual of the cause of action is to be excluded or inso far as any have been made. Sisson v. Clevelandcluded. Yet the decided current of the authorities & T. R. Co., 14 Mich. 495; Mabley v. Kittleberger, is that the day of the accrual is to be excluded. So 37 id. 362; Cleveland v. Newsom, 45 id. 63. See, in the computation of time from an act done, the also section 108 Greenl. Ev. 144, and cases cited. | day on which the act is done will be excluded. Our attention is called to what is said by Mr. Jus- | Mr. Angell, in his work on Limitations, section 49, tice Champlin in Patterson v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., makes the distinction that when the expressions are 54 Mich. 91, but it will appear by an examination from the date the rule is, if a private interest is to of the opinion it was held that the statement of the commence from the date, the day of the date is inbrakeman was no part of the res gestae, 'for the rea- cluded, but if they are used merely to fix a terson that such admission was not made while in the minus from which to commence, the day is in all execution of his duty, or while the act to which it cases excluded. In Cornell v. Moulton, 3 Denio, 42, referred was being performed, and he was not so an action was brought upon a note, payable on deconnected with the corporation defendant as to mand. The note was dated February 14, 1839, and make his admissions the admissions of the defend the action was brought thereon February 14, 1845. ant.' Not so in this case. At the time and place The statute of limitations in that State being six this accident occurred the engineer had complete years, the court held that the action was barred. control of his engine and management of the same. Bronson, C. J., who spoke for the court, said: 'Our He directed all of its movements; and the fireman cases all go to establish one uniform rule, whether and brakeman, and even the conductor, in case of the question arises upon the practice of the court danger to property or life from obstructions appear- or the construction of a statute, and the rule is to ing upon the track, were subject to his orders in exclude the first day from the computation.' The his efforts to avoid them. He was not only in the same rule has been announced by their respective


courts, as obtaining in the States of Connecticut, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION.
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Maine, Kentucky and
Missouri. See Wood on Limitations of Actions, pp.

ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT, Hon. Thomas J. 96, 97, and notes. It is considered in Indiana to

SEMMES, OF LOUISIANA, DELIVERED AT be the general rule that when the computation of

SARATOGA, AUGUST 17, 1887. time is to be made from an act done, the day on which the act is done is to be excluded. Jacob v.

CORPORATIONS may be organized in Michigan to Graham, 1 Black, 393. The same rule is main

U carry on every imaginable business, mercantile, tained in the courts of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, | mechanical or agricultural, including the buying and Maine and New York. Angell on Limitations, $ 50. selling of brood animals, and the growing of mint. And in New Hampshire when in the computation of

The sparrow is proscribed; a reward of one cent is time from a date, or from the day of the date, the

offered for every scalp. New York with less mercy day of the date is to be excluded. Blake v. Crown

makes it a duty to starve the sparrow, because it

punishes him who gives the poor bird food or shelter. ingshield, 6 N. H. 598. The same rule is adopted Before long this pitiless legislation will render it imand maintained in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, In- | possible to answer the query,so familiar to our youth, diana, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and Maine. |

“ who killed Cock Robi Wood on Limitations of Actions, p. 97. Without

Minnesota: Following in the footsteps of the other going out of our State, we have a statute in regard

States, Minnesota has enacted that woman shall retain

the same legal existence and legal personality after to the computation of time, to be found in the

marriage as before marriage, and shall receive same Code, chapter 8, section 596, which reads, “the protection of all her rights as a woman, which her time within which an act is to be done, as herein husband does as a man, and for any injury to her provided, shall be computed by excluding the first reputation, pers

reputation, person, or property or character or any day and including the last. If the last day be Sun

natural rights, she shall have the same right to appeal

in her own name to the courts of law or equity for reday it shall be excluded.'"

dress and protection, that her husband has to appeal in his name alone, provided the wife shall not have the

right to vote or hold office; but women may be apIn Hussey V. Kirkman, 95 N. C. 63, the question pointed notaries public. The garnishment of the wages was of the sufficiency of an acknowledgment to take of a laborer is prohibited; and a first lien is given to a demand out of the statute of limitations. The | the laborer, and the second lieu to the furnisher of intestate admitted to a third person that he owed |

material on all property to which either has contribua note of about sixty dollars, which was just and

ted, and it is made a penal offense for a contractor or

sub-contractor to receive the full amount due on bis due, and he intended to pay it if he ever got well

contract, without paying the laborer and the material enough. The court held this insufficient, observ man. Receivers of corporations are required, after ing: “The trouble is that no note has been pro payment of taxes, to pay all laborers and all sums duced, nor its contents shown, to which the admis

owing to clerks and servants of the corporation for

personal services, rendered for the three months preced. sions can be attached, so as to admit of identifica

ing their appointment. tion. The acknowledgment is very like that in

Actions for libel are regulated by a provision, that Faison v. Bowden, 72 N. C. 405, in which the testa the aggrieved party shall, at least three days before tor said to the plaintiff, I can't pay 'you what I commencing suit, serve notice on the publisher, owe you, but I will pay you soon, or next winter.

specifying the alleged defamatory matter and demand. I need what money I have now for building, and it

ing a retraction, and if retraction is made, actual

damages only can be recovered. The mortgage of crops will do you more good to get it in a lump.' The

before the seed thereof shall have been planted for testator owed the plaintiff for medical services, more than one year in advance is prohibited; suits for running over a period from the beginning of 1854 the foreclosure of mortgages must be commenced to his death, in November, 1861, and the recogni

within fifteen years after the cause of action accrues. tion of the debt was relied on to remove the bar as

The validity of a will admitted to probate cannot be

attacked after the lapse of ten years; minors and to the whole account. It was held to be insuffi

other persons under the disability at the time the will cient, and Reade, J., for the court says: “The rule was probated, are allowed ten years from the removal to be gathered from the numerous cases, to which of the disability to question it. The stipulation in a we were referred by the counsel, may be thus ex

contract that a debt shall have a greater rate of inpressed: The new promise must be definite and

terest after maturity than before, works a forfeiture

of the entire interest. show the nature and amount of the debt, or must

Contractors of prison labor are prohibited from distinctly refer to some writing, or to some other making contracts in advance for the manufacture of means by which the amount and nature of it can articles in competition with artisan labor. be ascertained; or there must be an acknowledg Railroad corporations are made liable for all damage ment of a present subsisting debt, equally definite

sustained in the State by their employees from the and certain, from which a promise to pay such debt

negligence of co-employees, unless there be contribu

tory negligence on the part of the injured employees, may be implied.' Again, it has been held that the

and such corporations are not allowed by contract, promise must be made to the creditor himself (Par. rule, or regulation to diminish or impair their liability. ker v. Shuford, 76 N. C. 219, and Faison v. Bovden,

An act has been passed to regulate common carriers id. 425), or to an attorney or agent for the creditor

which creates a railroad and warehouse commission, (Kirby v. Mills, 78 N. C. 124), to repel the statute."

and defines the duties of such commission; also an

aot to regulate elections, which is substantially a reSee note, 58 Am. Rep. 749, and references.

enactment of the law of New York on that subjeot;

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »