WE

E wish to recommend to the senior class that they avail themselves of the privilege of joining the Law School Alumni Association. The association has been in existence for some years and the membership contains many well known names of former graduates. The annual dinner, which takes place on the evening before commencement, is sure to be a pleasant and instructive occasion. The committee in charge hope that Governor McKinley will be able to be present, which will, of course, be a special inducement for all to attend.

A

PROBLEM AS TO RATIFICATION.-Professor Wambaugh has an article on the effect of the ratification of an unauthorized bilateral contract in the current number of the Harvard Law Review. The leading cases of Dodge v. Hopkins, 14 Wis. 630, and Bolton Partners v. Lambert, 41 Ch. D. 295, are discussed and the various theories criticised. No notice, however, is taken of the case of Citizens Gas Light Co. v. Wakefield, 161 Mass. 432. In that case the defendant town voted in accordance with statute to buy the plaintiff's plant. The statute required the corporation, in case it accepted the town's offer, to file a schedule of its property within thirty days. The schedule was filed by the directors within the thirty days, and the action of the directors was ratified by the stockholders after the expiration of the thirty days. The court held, following Bolton Partners v. Lambert, that the action of the stockholders was binding on the town, even though the filing of the schedule was a condition precedent to the towns' liability. The question whether the town could have rescinded its vote before the ratification by the stockholders was not discussed. It seems clear on principle, however, that such recission could have no more effect than the attempted withdrawal in Bolton Partners v. Lambert. If an offer is made which must be accepted within a given time, the expiration of the time specified has exactly the same effect as the withdrawal of the offer, and a subsequent acceptance has no effect. E. A. H.

THE

HE CURRENT NUMBER of the Harvard Law Review is devoted to the commemoration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of Professor Langdell's election to a professorship in the Harvard

Law School. Essays are contributed by present and former colleagues of Professor Langdell. The whole legal profession of this country owes a debt of gratitude to the Dean of the Harvard Law School. As a writer he has been surpassed by others whose writings show greater lucidity, greater constructive ability, and a broader view of the law; but it is doubtful if anything has ever been written surpassing in ingenious subtlety his treatment of Conditions. As a teacher he has had many superiors, yet it is as a teacher that he will always be remembered. His claim to distinction rests, however, not on his skill in imparting knowledge, but on his persistent devotion to his own ideas, which has done so much to establish modern scientific methods in legal education. The introduction of the inductive method in the study of law was a bold innovation. To-day the superiority of that method to all others is widely recognized, and the method itself is used to greater advantage by others than by Professor Langdell; but the development of the method of case-study is due largely to the years of persistent effort by which Professor Langdell, backed by President Eliot, and assisted by his colleagues, brought the Harvard Law School to its present position. The personality of Professor Dwight endeared him to all his pupils, and his memory will be cherished by all those who studied under him; but Professor Langdell's name will be known to thousands who never knew him personally, as that of a man, who, through long years of bitter adverse criticism, fought the battle which resulted in the revolution of methods of legal education.

THE prejudice which exists in some of the western states against

railway corporations is well illustrated by a recent Colorado case.. A cow was found dead close to the railway track, and the owner brought an action against the company. On the witness stand he testified that the section men did not know how the cow was killed, and he failed to show that he himself knew. There was no evidence as to the cause of the animal's death, and yet the judge refused a non-suit and the jury found against the company.

Court of Appeals was called upon to decide that the finding of a cow dead close to a railroad track was not conclusive evidence that it was killed by a train. Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Bullis, 39 Pac. 897.

CONTRA

ONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.-Where one contracts to sell another certain personal property, pertaining to the butcher business, for which cash is to be paid, and it is further agreed that the vendor shall not engage in the said business in the town where the business was carried on, nor within eleven miles thereof, nor for the period of time during which vendee conducts the business in that town, it was held that such a contract was valid. Eisel v. Hayes, 40 N. E. Rep. 119 (Ind.). This holding accords with the established doctrine that where the restraint upon trade is only partial, reasonable, and founded upon a good consideration, the contract with such provision will be valid and enforced. Decisions in Illinois that support this view of the case are Linn v. Ligsbee, 67 Ill. 75; Tulcott v. Brackett, 5 Bradw. (Ill.) 60; People Gas & Coke Co. v. Chi. G. & C. Co, 20 Ill., app. 473. It has been decided, however, in Bingham v. Maigne, 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. 90, that a contract not to exercise the trade of making printers' rollers and composition in N. Y. City or within 250 miles thereof is void as being in restraint of trade. In Wiley v. Baumgardner, 97 Ind. 66, a condition in a sale of a dry goods business not to engage in that business for five years, with no limitation as to place, was held void. The important point in such contracts seems to be: do the limitations extend to both time and place or to only one, and is the restraint reasonable in the particular case?

CONTRACT WITH AN INSANE PERSON.-Atwood v.

Jenkins, 40 N. E. Rep. 178 (Mass) One, H., an inhabitant of Chicago committed an offense in Boston and was arrested. He was placed under $300 bail and on the same day telegraphed plaintiff at Chicago: "Telegraph at once $400 to E. J. Jenkins, my attorney. Am in trouble." Plaintiff thereupon sent the money. H. at the time of committing the offense and of his arrest was insane and continued in that condition till he died. When the case was called a nolle prosequi was entered therein by reason of insanity of H. and bail was thereby released. The defendant was attorney for H., the retainer fee being $100, and this action of contract was brought against him for $300, money had and received to the plaintiffs' use. It was held that the contract was between plaintiff and H., that it was voidable but only at the election of H. Justice

Holmes said the analogy between insane persons and infants was not perfect but had prevailed, and cited Field v. Herrick, 101 Ill. 110 where it is held that "a lease executed by a minor is not void, but only voidable at his election and the lessee cannot set up the disability of the lessor to defeat the lease or be relieved from its covenants." The opinion further states that the right to avoid is for the personal protection of the insane and those who deal with them have been held to have no corresponding rights. No opinion was expressed as to the law in case of a bilateral contract wholly unexecuted on both sides.

ASTER AND SERVANT.-Where a track repairer was injured by the engine of a passing train of the defendant and it was proved that the accident was due to the engineman's negligence, in an action against railroad company. Held that engineman and track repairer are fellow servants and that as fellow servants they assume all risks naturally incident to that employment as well as danger of injury by fault or negligence of their fellow.

Such liability is not affected even if the workmen belong to different departments. In laying down the last principle the court gives the following test, "were the departments so separated as to exclude the probability of contact and of danger from the negligent performance of their duties in the different departments, then the servant is not deemed to have contracted with re erence to the negligent performance of the duties of his fellow servant in such other department, Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Nuckol's Admr. 21 S. E. 342 Va.

245

RECENT DECISIONS.

Action for Alimony.—While no personal judgment can be rendered in an action for alimony without personal service or voluntary appearance, service by publication will support a judgment against any property of the defendant within the jurisdiction, that being a judgment in rem within Section 41 of the Colorado Code. Hanscom v. Hanscom, 39 Pac., 885 (Colo).

Bonds of School District.-An issue of refunding bonds will not be affected by a provision of the state constitution providing that no debt in excess of the taxes for the current year shall be created except by popular vote. Miller v. School Dist., 39 Pac., 879.

Carriers.-The relation of passenger and carrier continues until the passenger has passed out of the depot grounds. Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Glenk, 30 S. W. 278 (Texas.)

Dower.-A widow is not entitled to dower in her husband's lands, conveyed by him alone to a third person and acquired by a railway company for its right of way. Baker v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. 30 S. W. 301 (Mo.)

Exemptions-Insurance on Exempt Property -Money received from an insurance policy covering property exempt from execution is itself exempt. Puget Sound Beef & Packing Co. v. Jeffs, et al, 39 Pac., 962 (Wash).

Gaming Contract.-Equity will restrain enforcement or negotiation of a note given for a debt incurred in speculations in cotton futures and order its cancellation. Beer v. Landman 30 S. W. 64 (Texas.)

Injury to Employee.—Dangerous premises.—A coal miner has the right to assume, in the absence of apparent defects, that a room in which he is ordered to work is safe and he is not bound to inspect it for the purpose of discovering latent defects. Island Coal Co. v. Risher 40 N. E. Rep. 158 (Ind.)

Insurance Policy-Collateral Agreements.-The consent of a fire insur. ance company, given by its duly authorized agent and acted upon by the insured, that goods might be removed into another building without vitiating policy is binding upon company, notwithstanding the fact that the policy stipulates, among other things, that "no privilege or permission under this policy shall exist or be claimed by insured unless so written or attached." Western Assurance Co. v. Williams, 21 N. E. 371 (Ga.)