Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/330

304 304 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. ordinary skill and knowledge necessary to perform his duty toward those resorting to him in that character." 2 Beven, Neg., 2d ed., 1397. Sears y. Prentice^ 8 East, 348. This duty arises out of the fact of the undertaking merely, and tlierefore is not at all dependent upon the existence of any contractual relation. The plaintiff's right to careful and skilful treatment, then, was in no wise affected because the defendant was employed by M. Fippin V. Sheppard, 11 l*rice, 400; Longmeid s. Halliday, 6 Exch. 761, per Parke, B., at p. 767 ; Dubois v. Decker, 130 N. Y. 325. See also an article on Gratuitous Undertakings, 5 Harvard Law Review, 222. The defendant would have been bound to use due diligence in perform- ing an operation or in prescribing a remedy. Was the duty of care any less in making an examination for the sole purpose of giving information to those interested? If legal damage might result in each case, it would seem, irrational to draw distinctions. Legal damage certainly resulted in this case. As early as the sixteenth century, loss of marriage, whether the plaintiff was man or woman, was held to be injury sufficient to sup- port an action of slander. Dame Morrison^ s Case, Jenk. 316; Davies v. Gardi?ier, Popham, 36 ; Matthew v. Crasse^ 2 Bulst. 89. There is no reason why it should not equally well support an action for negligence. The only remaining question is whether the damage was too remote. It was surely a natural and proximate result, and, in view of the fact that part of the defendant's task was to report to M.'s family, it was not only a probable, but an intended consequence. Unusual as the steps to the decision at first appear, the conclusion is found to be sound in point of principle and law. One-Man Corporations — Broderip v. Salomon Reversed. — The decision of Mr. Justice Williams in the case of Broderip v. Salomon, affirmed by Lord Justice Lindley in the Court of Appeals (72 L. T. Rep. 755), has very recently been reversed by the House of Lords {Salo?non v. Salomon 6^ Co., 13 The Times L. R. 46). This will be a satisfaction to most lawyers, and certainly a great relief to many business men. It is now settled that, in the absence of fraud, there is nothing in the intent or policy of the English Companies Act requiring each stockholder to have a real and independent interest in the business. Six of the required seven may be " straw " men, and nobody can object. If this state of things seems unde- sirable, it is for the legislature, not the courts, to make the change. The question in this case did not come up between the creditors of the company and the "one man,'* the promoter vendor, but between the latter and the company itself. In liquidation proceedings against the company Aron Salomon filed an application, whereupon the liquidator counterclaimed, demanding that the applicant indemnify the company for all its debts. It was shown that the six stockholders beside Aron Salomon were his wife and five children, and that each one of these straw members held but one share of stock, although the capital was ^£"40,000 in £^ shares. There seems to have been evidence enough to make it plain that the control of the business in fact was retained by Salomon when he sold it to this company, that he got all the profits, and that the primary object of the sale was to obtain the benefit of limited liability. Mr. Justice Williams held that the applicant was bound to indemnify the company for its debts. There are at least three possible grounds for going back of a company and holding its promoter to such a liability : (i) the