Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/555

529 RECENT CASES, 529 dividend. It was held, that this last contention could not be sustained, but that no creditor could interfere to prevent his debtor waiving the Statute of Limitations in regard to other claims. Jn re Sheppard''s Estate, 36 Atl. Rep. 422 (Pa.). It has been held in England that the payment of a dividend in bankruptcy will not amount to a part payment by the debtor, so as to start the Statute of Limitations running afresh. Davies v. Edwards, 7 Exch. 22 ; Ex parte Topping, 34 L. J. Bank. 44. In this country, it has been held in Campbell v. Baldwin, 130 Mass. 199, that part payment must be voluntary, and in Mc Mullen v. Rafferty, 89 N. Y. 456, that such payment can only be made by the debtor or his agent. The view taken in the principal case seems correct. As to the point of whether a creditor can intervene to prevent the waiver of statutory rights, it seems settled that he cannot. Brookville N'at. Bank v. Kimble, 76 Ind. 195 ; Allen v. Smith, 129 U. S. 465. Torts — Liability for Breach of Contract with Third Party. — The de- fendant railroad company under a through traffic arrangement delivered to the Lake Shore Railroad a car. The car was defective, — the defect being of such nature that it might have been readily discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. Plaintiff, a brakeman on the Lake Shore, was injured in consequence of this defect. Held, plain- tiff may recover his damages from defendant. Penn. R. R, Co. v. Snyder, 45 N. E. Rep. 559 (Ohio). This is one of a rapidly increasing line of cases in which one who carelessly furnishes a defective chattel to be used for a certain purpose is held answerable in damages to one of a class who might be expected to use the chattel, and who in using it for the purpose for which it was intended, is injured in consequence of the original defect. Another recent case of this description is Glenn v. Winters, 40 N, Y. Supp. 659. The action sounds in tort, and is totally independent of any contractual duty. The reason- ing on which the liability in tort is to be supported may be found in the opinion of Brett, M. R., in Heaven v. Pender, ii Q. B. D. 503. The liability of defendant in such cases is not, however, universally admitted. Zieman v. Mfg. Co., 63 N. W. Rep. 102 1. If it be admitted that defendant is under a duty to that class of which plaintiff is a member to use care in providing a sound car, the intervening carelessness of a third person is immaterial, even where the careless third party is * plaintiff 's employer, who is himself liable in tort to plaintiff. Moon v. R. R. Co., 46 Minn. 106. Torts — Preventing Enforcement of Decree. — Held, that an action will lie by a wife, in whose favor alimony has been decreed pending divorce proceedings, against one who has induced and aided the husband to leave the State, in order to avoid the payment of the alimony. Hoefler v. Hoefler, 42 N. Y. Supp. 1035. See Notes. Torts — Suit by Administrator — Contributory Negligence of the Beneficiaries. — By statute the administrator may sue, when the deceased himself might have done so. Held, that no damages would be given for the benefit of those beneficiaries whose negligence contributed to the accident, where the amount due each beneficiary could be respectively apportioned by the jury. Wolf v. Lake Erie <Sr» W. R. R. Co., 45 N. E. Rep. 708 (Ohio). The case is particularly interesting for a dictum, in which the court say that, if the amount must have been recovered in a lump sum, the negligent beneficiaries would be entitled to their share. The reason given is sound, namely, that it is better that the innocent beneficiaries should recover, even though the guilty get what is undeserved, rather than that the innocent should be deprived of their right because their co-benefi- ciaries were negligent. Ry. Co. v. Crawford, 24 Ohio St. 631. Although there has been some doubt in regard to the actual question decided in this case, (see Wymore v. Mahaska County, 78 Iowa, 396, contra,) the weight of authority and better opinion are in accord with this decision. Ry. Co. v. Snyder, 24 Ohio St. 670 ; Penn. Co. v. James, 81 i Pa. St. 194 ; Williams v. Ry. Co., 60 Tex. 205 ; Bamberger. Ry. Co., 31 S. W. Rep. 163; Beach on Contrib. Neg., § 44. See also Tiffany on Death by Wrongful Act, §§ 69, 70, and 9 Harvard Law Review, 282. Trusts — Land held in Trust to secure a Note — Conveyance by Trustee. — The owner of a piece of land executed a note, secured by a trust deed on the property. The note was for the accommodation of the payee, who paid it at maturity, and after- wards reissued it, having in the mean time acquired the equity of redemption in the land. Thereafter he conveyed the land, and also induced the trustee to join in a conveyance of the land, reciting the payment of the note, which was duly recorded. The land came by mesne conveyances to plaintiffs. At the request of the holder of the note, notice of sale under a power contained in the trust deed was given. On a bill to enjoin the sale, held, that the subsequent purchasers of the land took it subject to the trust for the payment of the note. Kelly v. Staed, 37 S. W. Rep. 1 1 10 (Mo.).