« 上一頁繼續 »
ducted a disorderly house at 120 Madison street, courts of equity disregarded the fiction that the adjoining residence. The beer was stored husband and wife were one, and treated them in an outhouse. The husband carried the key. as separate and distinct persons where it was He directed the negro to deliver the beer to necessary to protect the rights of the wife. 120 Madison street. There was evidence to Elliott v. Waring, supra; Winebrinner v. Weithe effect that the defendant herself sold beer siger, 3 T. B. Mon. 32. Indeed, the early rule to John Walt, and this evidence is uncontra- that the husband might chastise his wife in dicted. There was also certain evidence that moderation was never recognized or enforced the inmates of the house sold intoxicating in this state. Richardson v. Lawhon, 4 Ky, Law liquors and turned over the proceeds to the Rep. 998. By the act of March 15, 1894, now defendant. While the use of the words "or by sections 2127 and 2128, Kentucky Statutes, the or through any person connected with her" were rights and liabilities of husband and wife are not technically correct, we are not disposed to | materially changed. Under that act, the hushold that the error was prejudicial, in view of band has no estate or interest in his wife's the fact that the evidence that defendant her property, but the wife holds and owns all of her self sold beer to the witness Walt was uncon estate to separate and exclusive use, and free tradicted.
from the debts, liabilities, or control of her hus.
band. By virtue of that act the wife may make Another ground urged for reversal is that the court erred in not giving the jury the
contracts, sue and be sued, collect her rents, and whole law of the case; it being insisted that
may sell and dispose of her personal property.
In the case of Lane v. Bryant, 100 Ky. 138, 37 the jury should have been told in substance
S. W. 584, 18 Ky. Law Rep. 658, 36 L. R. A that, if they believed from the evidence that the
709, this court declined to follow the commondefendant acted jointly with her husband in
law rule that a husband was liable for slanderselling the liquor, or sold the liquor in his pres
cus words spoken by his wife, on the ground ence, the law presumed that she acted in obedi
that the rule had been changed by the above ence to his command and under his coercion, and they should find her not guilty, unless they
statute, the court saying: believed from the evidence that she acted of "The rule is a harsh one at best, and with the her free will and volition. It may be conceded progress of civilization, and the changes by that even at the time of Blackstone it had been
wise, modern legislation of the relation between
husband and wife as to the right of property the rule of the common law for a thousand
and personal control by the husband, it would years that where a crime with some exceptions,
seem absurd in this enlightened age to regard was committed by a married woman conjointly the wife as a mere machine, made to labor and with or in the presence of her husband, prima
to talk as the husband directs, and to make
him liable on that ground for her torts when facie she was not criminally liable, as it was
not committed by his direction or procurement." presumed that she acted in obedience to his commands or under his coercion. 13 R. C. L. After calling attention to the provisions of p. 1238. It may also be concedéd that the rule the act of March 15, 1894, the court added: has been applied to all classes of misdemeanors, “While it may be and is the marital duty of and even within recent years to the illegal sale both to aid each other in the support and mainof intoxicating liquors. Mulvey V. State, 43
tenance of each and of their children, the conAla. 316, 94 Am. Dec. 684; State v. Cleaves, 59
trol and use of the wife's property by her is
independent of the husband, not subject to his Me, 298, 8 Am. Rep. 422; 4 BI. Com. 28. While control, and the familiar doctrine that the le it is said that the reason for the rule is noi gal existence of the wife is merged in that of quite clear, it is evident that it must have haq
the husband no longer exists, and as on this
| rule is based the common-law liability of the its foundation in the peculiar relation which
husband for the wife's torts, and even for her existed between husband and wife in the earlier debts contracted before marriarge, the reason days. At common law the husband had almost | for enforcing this doctrine is gone, and past absolute control over the person of his wife;
1 adjudications on the subject will not be fol
lowed. The unity of person has been destroyed, she was in a condition of complete dependence;
and to say that it still exists, with the constant could not contract in her own name; was bound legislation of this state endeavoring to secure to obey; she had no will and her legal exist the wife in her person and property, and at last ence was merged into that of her husband, so
by the act of March, 1894, making the wife
equal of the husband in the control and use of that they were termed and regarded as one in
property, would be opposed to the plain legislalaw, “the husband being that one.” 13 R. C. tive intent, and result in enforcing a doctrine L. p. 983; Elliott y. Waring, 5 T. B. Mon. 338, that has neither wisdom nor justice in it." 17 Am. Dec. 69; MacKinley V. McGregor, 3 In the more recent case of Turner v. Heav. Whart. (Pa.) 369, 31 Am. Dec. 552. But these rin, 182 Ky. 65, 206 S. W. 23, the court, while conditions have changed. Even at an early day I recognizing the common-law rule that a wife could not sue for criminal conversation with or not of forgery, where there was no direct her husband, held that the rule had been evidence that she acted under the influence of changed by the act of 1894, and that a wife
her husband or that he compelled her in any way now had the right to bring such an action.
to participate in the crime. It will thus be seen that the one-person idea
In State v. Houston, 29 S. C. 108, 6 S. E. 943,
it was said that as matter of law a wife could of the marriage relation as expounded by the
not be deemed guilty where after being coerced common-law authorities, can no longer be in giving assistance, she became the more active made the touchstone of a married woman's of the two in consummating the offense, as the rights or capacities. Nagle v. Tieperman, 74
influence of former coercion might still be the Kan. 32, 85 Pac. 941, 88 Pac. 969, 9 L. R. A.
reason for her activity.
But the rule seems a little different where the (N. S.) 674, 10 Ann. Cas. 977. Being secure in
crime charged involves conspiracy and the comher person and property, and her separate iden mon law rule that husband and wife, being one tity having been established, it is clear that person in the law, they cannot be joined as conthe means through which a husband exercised
spirators. Several states have held that general
emancipation under married women acts do not control and dominion over the person and prop
abrogate this rule. erty of his wife no longer exist. Having sought Thus in People v. Miller, 82 Cal. 107, 22 Pac. and obtained these new rights and privileges, 934, on an appeal by the husband, his sole conwhich have placed her upon a plane of equality
tention was that no prosecution for conspiracy with her husband, she must accept the corres
could be maintained against husband and wife
and the Court said: "That such was the rule of ponding obligations and responsibilities which
common law, we cannot doubt, and we find noththose rights and privileges entail, and can no ing in the code or statutes of this state to inlonger take shelter under the supposed domin
dicate an intention by the legislature to change
it." ion of her husband. This is the view taken by the Supreme Court of Tennessee in the case
In State v. Clark, 9 Houst. 536, the Court
charged the jury that: "A husband and wife of Morton v. State, 141 Tenn, 357, 209 S. W. 644,
may together commit a crime as well as either 4 A. L. R. 264, where it was held that the sup one alone-they may combine together and composed duress of a woman by reason of marriage,
mit a murder; if they are both engaged in this which relieves her of liability for crimes com.
transaction, though the law regards them as one
they are alike guilty," but then the Court goes mitted in the presence of her husband, depends
on to say: "It is true that, if those two alone upon her disability by virtue of the marriage, were concerned in the commission of an offense and is destroyed by statutes emancipating her
of this kind, then you could not conyict, because from such disability. We therefore conclude
it takes two to make a conspiracy--they being one
in law; but it would be sufficient if there were that there is no longer a presumption that a other persons joined in it, though they were not married woman who commits a crime con known; then they might be convicted.” This . jointly with or in the presence of her husband
appears to us to be excessive refining. acts under his coercion. It follows that the
In Merrill v. Marshall, 113 111., App. 447, the court's failure to instruct the jury to that ef
action was for slander in charging that plaintiff
"and her husband formed a conspiracy to cheat fect was not error.
and defraud" a certain company, and therefore Judgment affirmed.
it was ruled that there was no imputation for
which an action was maintainable, because the Note-Coverture as Defense in Criminal common law so far as applicable and of a genActs.-In many of the States it has been held, I eral nature is the law of this state, and this as under the rule of common law, that if a has not been modified. At all events, it looks husband is present when a crime is committed like enforcing a technical rule quite strictly to by his wife presumably she acts under his coer apply it in such a case. cion, but this presumption, in this country at least, Whether the enabling acts and other statutes is remittable.
make inapplicable such a rule as we have been Thus in Com. v. Adams, 186 Mass. 101, 71 N. discussing, is a thing as to which we grow more E. 78, Loring, J., said it was recited that in that dubious every day. But it is difficult to say we state "When a married woman is indicted for have advanced or are advancing to the point, a crime and it is contended in defense that she where man and wife will stand in every way the ought to be acquitted because she acted under the same as regards the family relation. Not yet coercion of her husband, the question of fact to does it seem to be recognized that the man is be determined is whether she really and in truth displaced as the head of the family, nor do we acted under such coercion or whether she acted think it will be the case, when not only as to of her own free will and independently of any property rights they are equal, but also as to coercion or control by him.”
general political rights. Where woman is declared And much earlier than this it was held in Uhl to be a feme sole for certain purposes, the rule v. Com., 6 Grat. (Va.) 706, that an instruction of construction is that of strictness and nothing to the jury, leaving it to them to say whether to aid it is implied. The reasons we have cited the wife was coerced or acted under her own still give us a glimpse of the old rule, as they free will, was right.
impliedly admit that coercion by a husband might In People v. Ryland, 97 N. Y. 126, it was left be less injurious than by a stranger. to the jury to say whether a wife was guilty
HUMOR OF THE LAW.
RIGHT OF WOMEN TO SERVE AS JURORS. || Joe Fountain of Bootjack, Mich., was willing
to plead guilty in court to the charge of mak. Sheboygan, Wis., March 20, 1920. ing liquor, having a private still in his home. Central Law Journal,
Prosecuting Attorney Lucas told the court that St. Louis, Mo.
he tried to get a promise of reformation from
Joe, a promise at least that he would refrain Gentlemen :
from drinking for the remainder of his life. It is with great interest that I read the article in your issue of March 19th, having refer
"Not me," was Joe's answer. “It might go ence to the rights of women to be drawn for
As Joe's infraction included only making i jury service and agree with all that is said.
little spirit for his own use, he was released on What, however, has not been touched is the fact that the jury to which all constitutions
payment of the costs.-Daily Mining Gazette. refer in the provisions for right of trial by jury has been decided to be the common law
Some eons ago, in my youth's early hey-dey jury known at the time of the adoption of the
I used to sit up until midnight to read United States Constitution, which is a jury of
A method of getting more money on pay day twelve men and whose verdict must be unani.
In a book that was called “Seven Ways to mous. It seems to me that no constitutional
Succeed.” amendment giving the right to vote to women
"That man," I observed , "is a sevenfold wonder, unless further amendments were adopted
He's learned all the tricks and the kinks in changing the constitution as to what kind of a
the game. jury such constitutions refer to could give the
A person so wise couldn't know how to blunder; right to a Court to draw women for jury serv
By now he must be on the top peak of fame." ice, anymore than any law could be consti
But I found later on that the gifted old bloke tutionally enacted to reduce the number of
Had died in the workhouse, disheartened and men on a jury or to provide for a verdict other
broke. than unanimous. Respectfully yours, PAUL T. Krez.
Men thought that McCoyne was a whale, Sheboygan, Wis.
· He had soaring Sierras of pelf,
McCoyne had piled up by himself.
The people were startled to see
That a dumb little dame in the chorus girl game
Was named as his sole legatee!
American Digest, Annotated. Key Number Series, Volume 7A. Continuing the Century Digest and the first and second Decennial Digests. A Digest of all current decisions of all the American Courts, as reported in the National Reporter System, the Official Reports, and elsewhere, from January 1, 1919, to May 31, 1919; and digested in the Monthly Advance Sheets for February, 1919, to and including June, 1919 (Nos. 341-345). Prepared and edited by the Editorial Staff of the American Digest System. St. Paul. West Publishing Company. 1920. Review will follow.
As long as a man is alive
He can cling to the bubble called fame,
And people will honor his name.
Their robes of distinction will shed,
American Law of Charter Parties and Ocean Bills of Lading. By Wharton Poor, of the New York Bar. Albany, N. Y. Matthew Bender & Company. 1920. Price, $5.50. Review will follow.
When Jones was a king of finance
His countrymen reverenced Jones;
That he ever would pull any bones.
His dollars were left-every one-
solvent, the mortgage could not constitute a voidable preference, void under Bankruptcy Act. In re Sola e Hijo, S. en C., U. S. C. C. A., 261 Fed.
822. Weekly Digest of Important Opinions of the 4. Banks and Banking-Evidence. - Where
State Courts of Last Resort and of the Federal plaintiff, believing there was but one mortgage Courts.
on land, asked defendant bank to buy for plainCopy of Opinion in any case referred to in this digest
tiff the vendor's interest in a contract of sale may be procured by sending 25 cents to us or to the West
thereof, and to procure an assignment reciting Pub. Co., St. Paul, Minn.
that the sale was subject to but one mortgage, defendant, knowing there was a second mortgage, was liable for buying such interest with
out procuring such assignment.-Troutman v. Arkansas ...
Gates, Minn., 176 N. W. 187. California..................8, 9, 12, 23, 25, 26, 30, 45, 60
5.--Implied Warranty:-Where the books of 65, 73, 83
a bank are shown to a prospective purchaser of Colorado
bank stock, and nothing is said with reference Connecticut
to the correctness of the books, there is an imDelaware
plied warranty that the books are correct, but Georgia
where there is an express refusal on the part Idaho ...
of the seller to warrant the correctness of the Indiana... ........................11, 34, 50, 55, 64, 74,
books, there is no implied warranty.-Luten v. Iowa Kentucky...
Earles, Wash., 187 Pac. 349. .....................19, 48, 52, 63 Maine ... --
6.- Misapplication.--The issuing by an offi
33 Mary land....
.....................37, 46, 85
cer of a national bank, without consideration. Massachusetts ...
of certificates of deposit which are afterward Minnesota .......................4, 27, 31, 42, 43, 44, 72, 81
paid by the bank, constitutes a misapplication Mississippi
of its moneys. funds, and credits, within Rev. Missouri
..................22, 62, 71 St. § 5209 (Comp. St. $ 9772).—Matters v. U. S., Montana
U. S. C. C. A., 261 Fed. 826. Nebraska.......
.............. 20, 29, 82 7. Bills and Notes-Acceptance.--Payment by New Hampshire
bank of a check drawn on it includes acceptance. New Jersey........
............. 75, 92 --National Bank of Commerce of Seattle v. SeatXew Mexico......
...70, 86 tle Nat. Bank, Wash., 187 Pac. 342. North Dakota
........... 21 8.----Drawee.--The drawer of a check underOhio .......
.... 67. 78
takes that the drawee will be found at the place Oklahoma........
......10, 16, 39 that he is described to be, and that the sum Rhode Island ..
................. 91 specified will there be paid to the holder when South Carolina.
the check is presented, and he is bound to pay South Dakota....
32, 54 at the place named.-Raphael v. People's Bank Texas.
.................. 13, 17, 41, 59, 69, 76 of Benicia, Cal., 187 Pac. 53. C. s. ('. (. App........... .................1, 3, 6, 51, 77, 90
9.- Postdated Check.-A postdated check Utah
may be transferred before the day it bears date Vermont.................
.......................15, 57, 84
with like effect as if transferred on the day Virginia ..............
............ 35, 66
of its date.-American Nat. Bank v. Wheeler, Washington.....
-5, 7, 56, 79, 88
Cal., 187 Pac. 128. West Virginia......
10. Cancellation of Instruments-Inadequacy, Wisconsin
--Where the inadequacy of consideration for an 1. Bankruptcy-Appeal and Error.-A decree instrument affecting real estate is accompanied of adjudication is a final decree, and, if unap by other inequitable incidents and shows bad pealed from, is binding, not only on the bank faith, such as concealment, misrepresentation, rupt, but upon the petitioning creditors and all and undue advantage on part of the one obtainother creditors who became parties to the pro ing the benefit, or the ignorance, weakness of ceeding and interested in the estate, which is
mind, incapacity, pecuniary necessities, and the res in the hands of the Court.-In re Malkan,
like on the part of the other, such circumstanU. S. C. C. A., 261 Fed. 894.
ces, together with the inadequacy, will much 2. Constitutional Law.---Congress can con more readily induce a Court to grant relief, destitutionally enact that a discharge in bank fensive or affirmative.-Brink v. Canfield, Okla., ruptcy shall bar debts due to creditors residing | 187 Pac. 223. out of the country, so far as future proceedings 11. Carriers of Goods—Bill of Lading.–Perwithin the country are concerned.---Morency v. son discounting draft attached to bill of lading Landry. N. H., 108 Atl. 855.
requires special property in shipment.-Frontier 3.- Preference.- Where real estate was con Nat. Bank of Eastport v. Salinger, Ind., 126 N. veyed to a partnership, on its organization, by E. 40. one of the partners, with the knowledge of his 12. Carriers of Passengers--Derailment.-A partner that he had previously given a mort common carrier is responsible for defects in a gage thereon, the fact that through his failure rail causing derailment injuring a passenger to record his own deed the mortgage did not which, even though not discoverable after the become eligible to registry, so as to become a rail came into its possession, could have been lien, until within four months prior to the firm's | discovered by the most careful and thorough bankruptcy, when it was recorded, in the ab- examination during manufacture.-Morgan v. sence of evidence that the firm was then in Southern Pacific Co., Cal., 187 Pac. 74.
13. Commerce-Telegram.-Where there was continuous transmission of a telegraph message from a place in Mississippi to a place in Texas, the message was interstate commerce.--Mackey Telegraph & Cable Co. v. Martin, Tex., 218 S. W. 133.
14. Compromise and Settlement-Amicable Adjustment-It is the policy of the law to encurage rather than discourage amicable adjustments of controversies, and while it frowns upon imposition and fraud in the procurement thereof and will protect the victimized therefrom, it will not relieve from merely improvident settlements.Kessler v. Leinss, Wis., 176 N. W. 236.
15. Contracts Implication.-A duty may be imposed upon a party to a contract by necessary implication, and, when such implication is not external to the contract but gathered from it, it is as much a part of the contract as if set forth in express words.--Ambrosini v. N. Pelaggie & Co., Vt., 108 Atl. 916.
-Intent.-Where a contract is ambiguous, the true intention of the parties, if it can be ascertained therefrom, prevails over verbal inaccuracies, inapt expressions, and the dry words of the stipulation.--Prowant v. Sealy, Okla., 187 Pac, 235.
17.- Option.- Where, in a contract supported by a sufficient consideration, an option is given to one of the parties, the option is valid and enforceable, though there is no independent or specific consideration therefor.Blaffer & Farish v. Gulf Pipe Line Co., Tex., 218 S. W. 89.
18.- Quantum Meruit.-Plaintiff suing on a special contract for compensation as a shorthand reporter, having set up such a contract and offered evidence thereof, could obtain no relief on a quantum meruit.--Reitler v. Olson, Colo., 187 Pac. 313.
19. Corporations --- Apparent Authority.—The president of an oil-producing company, with authority to superintend drilling operations upon certain property, did not have apparent authority to enter into brokerage contract on behalf of the corporation, engaging brokers to sell such property.--Caddy Oil Co. v. Sommer, Ky., 218 S. W. 288.
20.- Change of Name.-A change of corporate name does not make a new corporation, but only gives the corporation a new name.-W. T. Rawleigh Medical Co. v. Bunning, Neb., 176 N. W. 85.
26.- Restriction Scheme. -Restrictive covenants inserted in deeds as part of a building scheme and expressly made binding on every lot in the tract for the benefit of every owner run with the land for the benefit of other lots in the tract. ---Miles y, Hollingsworth, Cal., 187 Pac. 167.
27. Criminal Law-Bribery.-An attempt by defendant to bribe an adverse witness was evidence of guilt and might be so considered by the jury.-State V. Ettenburg, Minn., 176 N. W. 171.
28.- Intrapping.-A person intrapped into the commission of a wrongful act, without any original criminal design upon his part and without any attempt to carry out a criminal purpose of his own conception, does not thereby become guilty of crime.--State v. Mantis, Idaho, 187 Pac. 268.
29.- Withdrawal of Plea.--After sentence, courts may, in their discretion, permit pleas of guilty to be withdrawn, or refuse to allow such withdrawal, and, except where there has been an abuse of such discretion, the Supreme Court will not interfere.-Sandlovich v. State, Neb., 176 N. W. 81.
30. Damages-Mental Anguish.--Mental anguish of plaintiff farmer, injured in the middle of the harvest season, when defendant's automobile collided with his buggy, is one of the consequential results of the injury, which need not be specially pleaded under rule as to pleading special damages.-Freiburg v. Israel, Cal., 187 Pac. 130.
31.- Minimizing.--The rule that an injured person must exercise reasonable precaution to keep down the damages does not require him to submit to an operation.-Gibbs v. Almstrom. Minn., 176 N. W. 173.
32. Dedication--Purpose of.-When land is taken or dedicated for use as a highway the taking or dedication should be presumed to be not merely for purposes and usages known and in vogue at the time, but also for all public purposes, present and prospective, known or unknown, consistent with the character of such highway, and not detrimental to abutting realty,
-Dakota Central Telephone Co. v. Spink County Power Co., S. D., 176 N. W. 143.
33. Divorce Acquiescence. Where band whose wife had deserted him in 1912 filed and served upon her in 1913 a libel for divorce charging cruelty, he thereby acquiesced in the desertion, and cannot subsequently, on libel filed in 1918, secure divorce as for a three-year utter desertion under Public Laws 1803, c. 212, in the absence of a showing of restoration of continuity of desertion broken by such acquiescence.Moody V. Moody, Me,, 108 Atl. 849.
34.- Alimony-Alimony on decree for limited divorce need not be in gross.-Goldberg V. Goldberg. Ind., 126 N. E. 36.
35. -Desertion.-Desertion by one consort of the other can only be justified by showing suo conduct on the part of the deserted party as would entitle the other to a divorce a mensa, and nothing short of this will justify a willful desertion or a continuance of it.Towson v. TOWson, Va., 102 S. E. 48.
36.- Paramount Right. The interest of a child of divorced parents is paramount to any right of his father to his custody:-Ladd v. Ladd, Iowa, 176 N. W. 211.
37.-- Public Interest.- Marriage is a relation in which the public is deeply interested, and it is subject to proper regulation and control by the state, and cannot be dissolved as an ordinary contract at the desire of the parties. Bounds v. Bounds. Md., 108 Atl. 870.
21.-_Misuse of Franchise.Misuse of a corporate franchise constitutes abuse of powers, justifying the application of Comp. Laws 1913, $ 8004, for the annulment of corporate franchises for abuse of power, whenever the acts of misuse involve injury to the public, although the same acts may be a violation of a penal statute. as Pen. Code. c. 65.-State V. GambleRobinson Fruit Co., N, D., 176 N. W. 103.
22.- Personal Act.Authority of the president of a corporation to draw checks in the name of the corporation for his individual benefit cannot be presumed.-McCullam v. Mermod, Jaccard & King Jewelry Co., Mo., 218 S. W. 345.
23.- Ratification.-Ratification by corporation of unauthorized contract made the contract that of the corporation from its inception.Union Oil Co. of California V. Pacific Surety Co., Cal., 187 Pac. 14.
24,- Ultra Vires.-An "ultra vires" act is an act beyond the powers of the corporation. Houston v. Utah Lake Land, Water & Power. Co., Utah, 187 Pac. 174.
25. Covenants-Building Restrictions.-That property subject to restrictive covenants has become more desirable or valuable for business than for residence purposes will not necessarily defat equitable relief, where the restriction, notwithstanding the change of conditions, is still of substantial advantage to the dominant property. -Strong v. Shalto, Cal., 187 Pac. 159.
38. Easements-Private Way.-Open, continuous, and notorious use by an owner of land of a private way over another's adjoining traet. known, acquiesced in, and unprotested by the latter, is presumptively adverse to him, and enjoyed under a bona fide claim of right.-Roberts V. Ward, W. Va., 102 S. E. 96.
39. Eminent Domain_Incidental Inconvenience.-The mere incidental inconvenience to an abutting property owner from the construction of a railroad along a public highway, or a consequential injury or a remote injury such 28 that suffered by the community in general. is not an element of damages for the jury in a