NOTES OF RECENT CASES

language used: "Is a proper motive for the decision discoverable short of assigning to the court emasculated intelligence, or a constipation of morals and faithfulness to duty?" and in the one to the Governor, " It goes to the integrity and stability of the state if the members of the court cannot be 'men learned in the law ' as required by the constitution, or honest, as re quired by good morals." There was also much other matter of a similar character in each letter. The members of the Supreme Court feeling that they were disqualified to sit in judgment where their own acts were drawn in question, the Governor, acting under a provision of the state constitution, appointed five judges of the district courts to sit in their stead and it was by this tribunal that the decision was handed down. While denominating the letter to the Governor and the publication of the other as reprehensible the court says the matter did not arise in any pending litigation, and states that no reported case has been discovered where an attorney was disbarred "for any utterance written or spoken concerning a decision or ruling of a judge in a cause after its final determination and not ad dressed to the judge in person." It held, however, that the letter addressed to the Chief Justice constituted a breach of pro fessional conduct warranting a suspension from practice for a period of six months. BAILMENT. (Breach of Contract to Return Goods at Specified Time.) N. Y. Sup. Ct. — In Carll v. Goldberg, no N. Y. Supp. p. 318, it appeared that plaintiff left his overcoat with defendant to be cleaned and returned by a specified time. Defendant failed to return the coat as agreed. After the time for its return defendant's shop was burglarized and the coat stolen. Defendant was not negligent so far as the burglary was concerned. Plaintiff sued for " breach of contract " in failing to return the coat on the day specified. The court hold's that defendant was guilty of breach of contract in failing to return the coat, and was liable for its value. CONFLICT OF LAWS. (River Boundary.) Oregon. — A case of especial importance to those states separated from neighboring commonwealths by navigable streams was recently decided by the Supreme Court of Oregon and published at page 720 of 95 Pacific Reporter under the title State v. Nielsen. Defendant was convicted of illegal ~fishing on the Washington side of the Columbia River in violation of the laws of Oregon. The laws of the former state permit fishing in the manner in which he was engaged and for the doing of which he was convicted, and he had

475

a license from that state giving him the required permission. The laws of Oregon are, however, more stringent and there seemed no question but that he was guilty of their violation if subject to their opera tion. Section two of the Act of Congress admitting Oregon to statehood (Act Feb. 14, 1859, c. 33, ii Stat. 383) provided that it should have concurrent jurisdiction on the Columbia River so far as it should form a boundary with any other state or territory. It was claimed that by this was meant that assent must be given by both jurisdictions to any legislation affecting the river, but the court held that such was not its purport and that whenever the law of one of the states was more stringent than that of the other, the one imposing the greater restrictions should apply. CORPORATIONS. (Rescission of Sale to Company by Promoters.) U. S. Sup. Ct. — The question of the right of a corporation to rescind a sale of property to it by promoters is discussed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Old Dominion Copper Min. and S. Co. v. Lewisohn, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 635. Lewisohn and another person named Bigelow formed the plaintiff corporation for the purpose of carrying out their plans. All other directors seem to have been mere dummies. Very soon after organization of the company its capital stock was increased and all but 20,000 shares exchanged for property in which the promoters were interested. These remaining shares were then offered for sale to the public and . purchased by persons who knew nothing of the profits made by the promoters in selling the property to the corporation. The court held that if there was any fraud it must have been in inducing the subscriptions by the public without divulging the facts regarding the purchase of the property by the corporation and that as Lewisohn' and Bigelow owned all the corporate stock at the time of the transaction complained of it was but a taking of money out of one pocket to put in the other and could not constitute a fraud on the corporation nor on subsequent purchasers of stock. CORPORATIONS. (Power to Insure Life of Offi cer.) N. C. — A stockholder, in Victor v. Louise Cotton Mills, 6i S. E. Rep. 648, sought to restrain the directors from paying insurance premiums on the life of a former president of the company. The services which the president performed were of great and peculiar value to the company, and at the request of the directors his life was insured for a large amount payable to his executors or assigns and the policy was immediately assigned to the company, which paid the premiums. The