The writ of habeas corpus is sometimes used as between the parent and a third person to gain possession of the child. More often it is used as between husband and wife living apart and disagreeing concerning the custody of the child. This writ is a writ of liberty, and if the child is over fourteen he is allowed to stay with whichever parent he pleases. But if under that age he is given into the custody of the more natural guardian. This is done under a writ of liberty on the theory that putting the child in the right custody is more near to liberty. A more comprehensive remedy in such a case is to file a petition with a judge in equity to determine the matter on the broad principles of the child's welfare. The court looks on the matter of the child's custody as a trust, and will decree the custody of the child to that parent -or, if necessary, a third person - in whose hands the child's welfare may demand that he be placed.

In the case of a child born during wedlock it is not enough to make it illegitimate to show that an adulterer may have been its father, but he must have been its father.

Chapter XVII. Guardians ad litem or special guardians are appointed to attend to the litigation of an infant. There must regularly be a guardian ad litem in every suit in which an infant is involved. In most cases he must be an attorney of the court, and he may be the regular guardian. The object of this is that there may be a person on the record subject to the order of the court and liable for costs.

Chapter XVIII. By the common law the debts of a corporation cannot be collected from the private property of the members, although it may be insolvent, for the corporation alone has a standing in court, and must be sued as a corporation. This may be changed by statute. The stockholder of a corporation does not as such own any

He has

part of the corporate property. only an incorporeal right to share in the profits earned by the corporation.

The legal meaning of the word "charitable" has departed from the popular meaning of the word. In its legal sense "charitable" means public. A gift is charitable not alone when it is for the benefit of the poor, but when it is for rich and poor alike. For instance a college would be a charitable institution. Charitable and eleemosynary are substantially identical in meaning.

To make a public corporation, the instrumentality that manages it as well as the purpose for which it is chartered must be public.

A municipal corporation is created to carry on the government. In the creation of such a corporation there is no contract, while in the case of a private corporation the charter itself is a contract. If a charter is a contract it cannot be changed by the State legislature without the consent of the corporation, for the United States Constitution says that no State shall pass a law impairing the obligation of contracts. This point was decided in the famous case of Dartmouth College vs. Woodward, 4 Wheat., 518. The college charter granted by the King of England was a contract, and the State of New Hampshire could not change it without the consent of the corporation. The effect of this rule has been in part done away with in recent times by the reservation by the State in granting a charter of the right to alter, amend or repeal it.

There were really but two modes of creating a corporation at the common law, by the King and by Parliament. But when a corporation had existed for a long period (twenty years) the court conclusively presumed that it originally was created by grant from the King. This was called prescription. This rule is a fiction in the

Corpora

interests of peace and quiet. tions in this country are created by Congress or the State Legislature. A State can create any corporation that Parliament could. When we wish to know if Congress has the power to create a particular corporation we must look to the terms of the United States Constitution.

Acceptance of a charter may be proved not only by a vote of the corporation accepting it, but by acting under it which is called user.

Formerly charters were all granted by special laws. Advantageous ones were thus procured by favoritism and bribery. To avoid this general laws have been passed under which by drawing up certain articles and filing them with certain officers, a charter for a corporation may be obtained. Very few special charters are now granted.

The idea of a legal immortality is no longer necessary to a corporation.

If a corporation acts under a fictitious. name it is estopped-that is, prohibited from denying that it is its name.

A corporation must not, in its acts, go beyond the purposes for which it was created. If it should do so and make a contract, that contract will in some instances be declared void, it is "ultra vires." This is particularly true when it strives to gain an advantage from the act, but as between itself and the other party to the contract it may be precluded from setting up the doctrine in its own favor. A legal act of a corporation must be done at a regular meeting of the corporators. In order to so act there must be a quorum present that is, a majority in number of the original number of corporators. But in the case of a commercial corporation, as a railroad, the capital stock of which is divided into shares, owned by stock holders, any number of share or stock

holders who may come to a regularly called meeting of the corporation can act and their act is the act of the corporation.

In the case of a corporation holding its annual meeting in the State where it was created it happens that many share holders reside at a distance and cannot conveniently attend. In that case and others they may send a "proxy" to some one else to vote for them. This proxy is nothing else than a power of attorney.

When no statute of mortmain prohibits it, a corporation may purchase and hold so much land as it needs for its legitimate purposes. It cannot take land by devise as it is not mentioned in the statute of wills. But to this rule there is the exception that charitable corporations may take by devise.

NOTES IN EQUITY.

PROFESSOR LEE.

Officially Revised.

BISPHAM'S PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY.

The figures preceding the notes refer respectively to the page and section in connection with which the note is given. All references to the New York Revised Statutes are made to the star paging, except when otherwise specified.

21, § 13. In regard to the practice in the U. S. Circuit Courts sitting in equity, as to how far they are bound by the rules of the English High Court of Chancery, see Thomson vs. Wooster, 114 U. S., 104, especially note on page 112; see also Buzard vs Houston, 119 U. S., 347.

The U. S. rules for Courts of Equity may be found in Desty's Federal Procedure, Mitford & Tyler's Pleading and Practice in Equity and Daniel's Chancery Practice (American edition).

21, § 14. As to equity jurisdiction in New York, see Code Civ. Pro. 217.

53, § 37. See Tilghman vs. Proctor, 125 U. S., 148, and Buzard vs. Houston, 119 U. S, 347.

62, § 43. In New York this rule is made inapplicable in cases of usury and the borrower need not make a tender of principal and legal interest. 1 R. S., 772. § 8. Laws of 1837, Chap. 430. § 4. See also Buckingham vs. Corning, 91 N. Y., 525, where it is decided that a devisee is not a borrower within the meaning of the statute and where the cases are reviewed.

64, 45. Fairbanks vs. Sargent, 104 N. Y., 108, particularly 118.

90, § 60. When there is a failure of heirs to real estate whether the interest is legal or equitable, it goes to the State. Johnson vs. Spicer, 107 N. Y., 185. 91, § 61. See 1 R. S., 728, § 55. I R. S. 729. § 57 and 63. Also Tolles vs. Wood, 16 Abb. N. C., I and note.

95, § 64. See corresponding N. Y. Statute of Frauds, 2 R. S., 134-138. See particularly 2 R. S., 134, § 6, and 2 R. S., 137, § 2; also Day vs. Roth, 18 N. Y, 454, and Kennedy vs. Porter, 109 N. Y., 448, as to trusts in personal property.

101, § 66, note 1. See Code Civ. Pro. $840. A seal on an executory instrument is only presumptive evidence of sufficient consideration.

107, § 68. Voluntary assignments for the benefit of creditors are regulated by the "General Assignment Act," Laws of 1877, chapter 466. Previously regulated by chapter 348 of Laws of 1860. (See also amendatory acts.)

112, § 73 As to precatory words in a will, see Clark vs. Leupp, 88 N. Y. 228. See 1 R. S., 728, §§ 51, 52, 53; also Reitz vs. Reitz, 80 N. Y., 538; Foote vs. Bryant, 47 N. Y., 544; Gilbert vs. Gilbert, 2 Abb. Dec., 256; Estes vs. Wilcox, 67 N. Y., 264 ;

Swinburne vs. Swinburne, 28 N. Y., 568; Siemon vs. Schurck, 29 N. Y., 598.

120, § 80. But see Moore vs. Moore, 5 N. Y., 256; Conkey vs. Bond, 36 N. Y., 427; Sandford vs. Norris, 4 Abb. Dec., 144.

122, § 82. 2 R. S., 134, § 6. 2 R. S., 135, 8.7.

123, § 83. Swinburne vs. Swinburne, 28 N. Y., 568.

127, § 85. But see above note to § 78. 128, § 86; 136, § 93. Sanford vs. Norris, 4 Abb. Dec., 144.

137, note 4, § 94. Campbell vs. Johnston, 1 Sand., Ch., 148; Bank of Orleans vs. Torrey, 7 Hill, 260; Van Epps vs. Van Epps, 9 Paige, 237.

139, § 96. 2 R. S. 98, § 79, 7th edition 2305 as amended by Laws of 1867, chapter 782.

145, notes 4 and 5, § 101. Jacques vs. Methodist Episcopal Church, 17 John., 548; Burr vs. Burr, 7 Hill 213; Pride vs. Bubb, L. R. 7 Ch. Ap. 64; Cooper vs. McDonald, L. R. 7 Ch. Div., 298; Noble vs. Willock, 8 Ch. Ap., 787; Willock vs. Noble, L. R. 7 H. of L., 590; but see Wadhams vs. American Missionary Society, 12 N. Y., 415., as to wills of personalty in New York.

163, 115. Married Women's rights in New York, Laws of 1848, 1849, 1860, 1862 (repeals some of provisions of Law of 1860), 7th edition R. S., 2336 et seq., Laws of 1884, chapter 381, Laws of 1887, chapter 537.

Tenancy by the entirety still exists, Bertles vs. Nunan, 92 N. Y., 152; courtesy also exists where wife has not disposed of the property. Hatfield vs. Sneden, 54 N. Y., 285.

The husband is still entitled to his wife's services in the household. Coleman vs. Burr, 93 N. Y., 17.

Under the law previous to 1884 her rights were defined by Yale vs. Dederer, 68

N. Y., 329, S. C., 22 N. Y., 451, S. C., 18 N. Y 265; Corn Exchange Insurance Co. vs. Babcock, 42 N. Y., 613; Freckings vs. Rolland, 53 N. Y., 422; Loomis vs. Ruck. 56 N. Y, 462. Manhattan Brass Manufacturing Co. vs. Thompson, 58 N. Y., 80; McVey vs. Cantrell, 70 N. 'Y., 295; Saratoga County Bank vs. Pruyn, 90 N. Y., 250. The act of 1884 gave a married woman same power to contract as if she were sole, except with her husband, and the act of 1887 allows a deed directly from husband to wife and vice versa.

172, § 127. Jackson vs. Phillips, 14 Allen, 556.

180, § 134. New York cases on Trusts for Charities. Shotwell vs. Mott, 2 Sand. Ch., 46; Williams vs. Williams, 4 Selden, 525 (afterwards overruled); Phelps vs. Pond, 23 N. Y., 69, 77; Beekman vs. Bonsor, 23 N. Y., 298, 575; Bascom vs. Albertson, 34 N. Y., 584; Rose vs. Rose, 4 Abb. Dec., 108; Adams vs. Perry, 43, N. Y., 487; Holmes vs. Mead, 52 N. Y., 332; Wetmore vs. Parker, 52 N. Y., 450; Owens vs. Missionary Society, 14 N. Y., 380, 387; Leonard vs. Bell, 1 N. Y. Sup Ct., 608, affirmed 58 N. Y., 676; Holland vs. Alcock, 108 N. Y., 312.

184, 139. But see People vs. Faulkner, 107 N. Y., 489.

186, § 141. The authorized investments in New York for trust funds are United States and New York State securities, first mortgages on real estate, and deposits in certain designated trust companies. Ackerman vs. Emott, 4 Barb., 626; Adair vs. Brimmer, 74 N. Y., 550; Mills vs. Hoffman, 26 Hun, 594 (reversed on other grounds, 92 N. Y., 181); Redfield's Surrogate's Practice, 511; King vs. Talbot, 40 N. Y., 86, 97; Hun vs. Cary, 82 N. Y., 65.

187 § 143. Van Epps vs. Van Epps, 9 Paige, 237.

188, 144. R. S., 7th Edition, 2303; Phoenix vs. Livingston, 101 N. Y., 451.

189. § 146. Earle vs. Earle, 93 N. Y. 104; 196, § 151. As to time necessary to bar a right to redeem, see Code Civ. Pro., §§ 379, 375 and 396.

199, 152. Trimm vs. Marsh, 54 N. Y., 623; Shattuck vs. Bascom, 105 N. Y., 39.

208, 159. As to mortgages to secure future advances. See Robinson vs. Williams, 22 N. Y., 380; Ackerman vs. Hunsicker, 85 N. Y., 43.

209, § 160. As to merger. See Purdy vs. Huntington, 42 N. Y., 334. 214, 165. What can be assigned in Equity. Devlin vs. Mayor, 63 N. Y., 8. Stone vs. Frost, 61 N. Y., 614; Storer vs. Eydesheimer, 4 Abb. Dec., 309; Holroyd vs. Marshall, 10 H. L. Cas., 209; McCaffery vs. Woodin, 65 N. Y., 459, 22 Am. Rep., 644 and note; Dunham vs. Railroad Co., I Wall., 254; but see Coates vs. Donnell, 94 N. Y., 177.

218, § 166. Bliss vs. Lawrence, 53 N. Y., 442; as to what is assignable, see Code Civ. Pro., § 1910.

221, § 167. Attorney General vs. Continental Life Insurance Co., 71 N, Y,, 325.

222, § 168. Hall vs. City of Buffalo, 2 Abb. Dec., 301; Brill vs. Tuttle, 81 N. Y., 454; Shaver vs. Western Union Telegraph Co., 57 N. Y., 459; Munger vs. Shannon, 61 N. Y., 251; Lowry vs. Stuart, 25 N. Y., 239; Alger vs. Scott, 54 N. Y., 14.

225, § 171. Fairbanks vs. Sargent, 104 N. Y., 108, and particularly page 115; More vs. Metropolitan Bank, 55 N. Y., 41, modifying Bush vs. Lathrop, 22 N. Y., 535; Green vs. Warnick, 64 N. Y., 220; Schafer vs. Reilly, 50 N. Y., 67.

POCKET EDITION OF NEW YORK CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE. DONNAN'S ANNOTATED CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND PENAL CODE. Editions of 1888. H. B. Parsons, Albany.

The first of these books we believe to be the best of the many pocket editions of the code published. The print is necessarily fine, but it is remarkably clear and distinct and can be read with less strain on the eyes than some of the more pretentious editions. Besides the text of the code it contains the Temporary, Suspension and Repealing Acts. Almost every section is annotated, the annotations varying from a brief note stating the sources from which the section in question is drawn, to a half a page or more, giving quite complete lists of the more important decisions on sections that have produced a good deal of litigation. There is also a supplement containing notes and references to all decisions down to June 1888. The index is complete and exact.

The second book is novel in some respects. We believe that the idea of publishing the two codes together originated with this editor. At any rate this is the only editor that we have seen that combines the codes, annotates them thoroughly and adds a supply of forms. The latter, some three hundred and thirty in number, are a very valuable addition to the book. There is a very great variety of them and they seem adapted to almost every incident of criminal practice that can occur in ordinary cases. Both codes are thoroughly annotated, on the same general plan as that pursued in the Civil Code. The origin of the different sections is given and lists of the important cases while there is also added a brief statement of the points

Since the Forum has succeeded to the place formerly occupied by the North American Review, and the latter having abandoned the "Tros Tyrisque" business, has degenerated into a mere partisan organ whose columns are always open to any misrepresentation, attack or even slander directed at the Democratic party or its policy, the need has been felt by Democrats of having an organ which could cope with the Review on its own chosen ground of partisanship. This need led to the establishment of Belford's Magazine, the fifth number of which we have just received. The peculiarity of the magazine is that it combines its politics with a lighter class of essays and with fiction.

In this number the leading article "A condition not a theory," is by Prof. Sumner. It is almost unnecessary to add that it is a very clever and also very convincing presentation of the subject—that is, convincing to any one who is willing to be convinced. The article on Mr. Blaine is capitally written and very severe, but it has attained severity in some places at the expense of dignity, thereby descend