Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 1.djvu/356



—A train dispatcher is not the fellow-servant of the employees engaged in moving the trains, but is as regards them a vice-principal so that the railroad company is liable for any injuries to such employees resulting from his negligence. Lewis v. Leifert, 11 Atl. Rep. 514 (Pa.). To the same effect is East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. v. De Armond, 37 Alb. L. J. 22 (Tenn.), collecting cases.

—By an act of Congress the amount of the fifteen and one-half million dollars of the Geneva award not paid out to those who had suffered actual loss was to be distributed to those who had paid increased premiums of insurance because of the risk from Confederate cruisers. Held, that on the bankruptcy of the defendant after the passage of the act this claim did not pass to the assignee in bankruptcy. It was a donation of the government, and not a claim because of a wrong done. Taft v. Marsily, 33 N. Y. Dail. Reg. 253 (N. Y. Sup. Ct.).

The same point was decided the same way in the Maryland Court of Appeals. Ahrens v. Brooks, 18 Md. L. J. 52. The uestion is also said to be pending before the United States Circuit Court at New Orleans.

—A was owner, shipper, and consignee of cattle, shipped upon defendant railroad, which gave receipts for the same. A indorsed the receipts to the plaintiff, a bank. The defendant delivered the cattle without an order from A to a third party, whom the defendant had in the receipt (or bill of lading) been directed to notify of the arrival of the cattle. Held, that the defendant was liable for the value of the stock, since the direction to notify a third party will not relieve a carrier from its duty to deliver to the consignee or his order. Moreover, it is the duty of a carrier to notify the consignee of the arrival of property if it is possible, and it seems that a direction in a bill of lading to notify certain persons is a plain indication, in the absence of further directions, that they are not the consignees. (See Furman v. Ry. Co., 106 N. Y. 579.) North Pa. R. Co. v. ''Commercial Nat. Bank'', 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 266.

—Defendant, a railroad company, took on board, not at a regular station, certain laborers engaged to take the place of strikers. These laborers were at that time protected from a mob by a strong police force. At the next regular station the train was attacked by a mob of strikers, and the plaintiff, a passenger in the same car with the laborers, was shot. Held, on a rehearing, Sheldon, C. J., and Magruder, J., dissenting, plaintiff can recover, as the defendant was not bound to take on passengers except at regular stations, and had reason to apprehend the danger to passengers thereby incurred. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Pillsbury, 37 Alb. L. J. 27 (Ill.).

—A through ticket over several roads contained a printed stipulation limiting liability on baggage to $100, and a further stipulation that the road selling the ticket assumed no liability beyond its own lines. This road carried a trunk to the end of its line; there its employees, assisted by employees of the union depot at the terminus, loaded it on a truck, and placed on top of it a box containing acid insecurely packed. The depot hands rolled the truck into the baggage-room, and, in unloading it, spilled acid over this trunk and destroyed the contents. Held, that the loss was caused by the negligence of the receiving road, and that the limitation of liability to $100 was of no effect unless known to the purchaser of the ticket and assented to by him, because a passenger’s ticket is ordinarily a check showing that fare has been paid, and he has no reason to suppose that he is entering into a contract. Kansas City, etc., R. R. Co. v. Rudebaugh, 15 Pac. Rep. 899 (Kan.).

The relation between the depot employees and the railroads is not stated, and it is not decided whether the liability of the first road would have continued, if the loss had occurred after the baggage was in the possession of a connecting line.

—A statute making it unlawful to practise medicine without a license, and providing that in order to obtain a license the applicant must exhibit proof either of having attended a reputable medical college, or of having practised medicine within the State