NOTES OF RECENT CASES

was the contention of the appellant's attorneys The question of real legal interest in the case is that the ticket evidenced a contract which was to the right of persons owning property adjacent to be performed on demand, and that time would the street to incumber the sidewalk in the course not begin to run against it until such demand was of transaction of business, and upon this point made, and at first glance this would appear to be the court speaks as follows: "Abutters upon a the rational and common-sense view of the mat public street may use the sidewalks in front of ter. In disposing of this contention, however, the their premises for the purpose of loading and un court says: When issued the ticket was evidence loading goods, merchandise, or other like articles of the fact that the purchaser had paid for pas in which they may deal or use, but the sidewalks sage from Houston to San Antonio, and not being belong to the public, and the public primarily have the right to the free and unobstructed use limited as to time, it could be used at any reason able period after its purchase. When railroad thereof, subject to reasonable and necessary limi tations, one of which is the right of an abutting tickets are purchased, common experience demon strates that they are purchased for immediate property owner to temporarily obstruct the walk use, and such use must necessarily be within the by loading or unloading goods, wares and mer contemplation of the carrier and passenger when chandise when such obstruction is reasonably the purchase was made. The statute would, necessary. Such obstruction must, however, be therefore, begin to run within a reasonable time both reasonable as to the necessity therefor, and after the issuance of the ticket. No one buys temporary in point of time. The prior and su railroad tickets to store away and be kept to be perior right of passage is possessed by the public. transmitted as part of his estate to his heirs, but A merchant or business man cannot be permitted they are bought for immediate use, and such use to so conduct his business of receiving and deliv of them must necessarily be in contemplation of ering the commodities in which he deals as that the parties when the ticket is sold. The ticket the sidewalks shall be substantially appropriated held by the appellant could not occupy any better to the transaction of his affairs. A business position as to the statute of limitations than a which has reached that magnitude cannot be ac promissory note payable on demand, and it is the commodated by the appropriation of the public sidewalks to its purposes, but the proprietor must settled rule in Texas that the statute of limita tions begins to run against such a note from its enlarge his place of business, procure another lo date, citing Cook's Adm'rs v. Cook, 19 Tex. 434; cation which will meet its demands, or otherwise Eborn v. Zimpelman, 47 Tex. 503, 26 Am. Rep. provide for the transaction of his business in such 315; Pitschki v. Anderson, 49 Tex. 4; Swift v. manner that the public will not be asked to sub Trotti, 52 Tex. 504; Henry v. Roe, 83 Tex. 446, mit to other than reasonable and merely tempo 1 8 S. W. 806; Kampmann v. Williams, 70 Tex. rary obstructions of the public way." It is spe cifically held that inasmuch as plaintiff was com 568, 8 S. W. 310. pelled to walk in the narrow passageway, and as STREETS. (OBSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS — defendants were engaged in handling bunches of bananas on the sidewalk so that the dropping of a RIGHTS OF ABUTTING OWNER AND OF PE loose banana on the part of the walk where de DESTRIANS.) ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT. fendants compelled the public to walk might have The slippery and unreliable banana peel which been reasonably apprehended, they were liable for many years has furnished questionable jokes for plaintiff's imuries. and cartoons, makes its debut, so far,as we know, in the literature of the law in a case the very title TRADE NAMES. (Use OF OWN NAME — CASES DISTINGUISHED.) of which is more or less suggestive of bananas, U. S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. viz., Garibaldi & Cuneo v. O'Connor, 71 North eastern Reporter, 379. Garibaldi & Cuneo were Two cases involving the question of tradedealers in fruit, and in the transaction of their names and unfair competition, both published in business obstructed the sidewalk adjacent to their 122 Federal Reporter, are of sufficient interest to building with boxes containing bananas, or other deserve notation. The facts involved in either fruit, bunches of bananas and barrels, so as to case would furnish a sufficient reason for giving it force pedestrians into a narrow passageway be mention, but the two become peculiarly interest tween the boxes and barrels. Plaintiff, while ing when they are compared and the fact is noted passing along this walk, was forced into this nar that precisely the same principle is applicable in row passageway and, while walking there, stepped each case, the only difference being that in one case upon a banana with the usual result, and brought the facts are held to fall within its purview, while action for the injuries occasioned by the fall. in the other the contrary conclusion is reached.