NOTES OF RECENT CASES

fractional interest in an automobile. Each con tract provided that complainants could make similar contracts with other merchants and that persons receiving tickets from the merchants complying with their contracts should have equal interest in the automobile. The merchants repudiated their contracts before the stamps were issued. The court held that complainant could not maintain a bill against all the merchants on the theory that the automobile was involved in all the contracts and that as there were no ticket holders the merchants were entitled to it. and since it could not be given, or its value credited to each merchant in an action at law, all the merchants became subject to one equitable suit, in which the automobile could be tendered to them jointly.

477

from this affirmance. It was contended that the judgment of the Massachusetts court was. under the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, entitled to recognition in Michigan, but the court held that as there was no appearance by the executor he could not be bound by a judgment rendered against the ancillary administrator.

EQUITY. (Restraining Use of Judgment as Evidence. ' N. Y. Sup. Ct.—A rather novel though not entirely new branch of equity jurisdiction is involved in Matthews v. Carman, 107 New York Supplement, 694, where it is sought to set aside an order in summary proceedings as being obtained by: fraud and to restrain its use as evi dence. The Supreme Court held such relief available in a proper case, but as the facts in this instance showed that the justice's court in which the judgment was rendered had no jurisdiction jt was subject to collateral attack as being the determination of a court not of record and could be objected to when offered in evidence. Equitable relief was therefore denied.

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. (Application of Part Payments.) Minn. —The Minnesota Supreme Court decided an interesting question on the effect of part payment of debts barred by limita tion in the case of Anderson v. Nystrom, 114 N. W. Rep. 742. The father of defendants being indebted to plaintiff gave him three promis sory notes therefor and after all of them had become barred by limitation sent a part payment to him without any direction as to its application. Plaintiff indorsed one-half the amount paid on each of two of the notes. After Nystrom's death his sons executed a note to plaintiff in satisfaction of the three held against their father under agreement with plaintiff that he would "make no trouble on account of them." Suit was subsequently brought on the sons' note and the question arose as to the effect of the indorse ments of payment made by plaintiff. The court held that where payment is made on claims not barred, without direction as to its application, the creditor may split it up and by indorsement on the different obligations prevent the running of the statute but that this rule will not apply to claims already barred.

JUDGMENT. (Constitutional Law.) U. S. Sup. Ct. — According to the statement of facts in the case of Brown v. Fletcher, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 702, while certain litigation was pending against Fletcher in one of the courts of Massachusetts the parties to the action entered into a stipula tion for arbitration which was not to be dissolved by death of either party. Fletcher died before final award and letters testamentary were issued in Michigan where the main part of his property was situated and an administrator with will annexed appointed in Massachusetts. The prin cipal suit was then revived, the ancillary adminis trator appeared, and notice was served on the executor in Michigan. The attorneys of Fletcher withdrew their appearance and the executor made no appear ance. The arbitration proceeded, an award was made against Fletcher's representatives, and the judgment was subsequently presented as a claim against Fletcher's estate in Michigan and dis allowed by the probate court. Its judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Michigan and xhe case in the United States Court was on appeal

MASTER AND SERVANT. (Government Inpecstion.) U. S. C. C. A. Tex. — The case of O'Connor v. Armour Packing Co., 158 Fed. Rep. 241, presents some unusual questions as to a master's duty to his servant. Plaintiff was in the employ of defendant engaged in the removal of hides from animals slaughtered at one of defendant's plants and sent to Fort Worth, Texas, where plaintiff's work was performed, and the animals thereafter sold to local retail butchers. It appeared that plaintiff became afflicted with some kind of malady which was diagnosed by his physician and treated as charbon or anthrax, which he alleged was contracted from the diseased carcass of a calf while skinning it and that defendant was guilty of negligence in failing to properly inspect the carcass and prevent its handling in the same manner as was pursued with healthy animals. Defendant claimed that an adequate government inspection was made, but the court held that the duty was one which could not be thus delegated so as to relieve defendant without showing that it had been actually and properly done. The judgment of the lower court