Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/92

66 66 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. the plaintiff, and hence there should be no recovery. But the court said that the pledgor's cause of action arose when the pledgee first disposed of the note, and nothing subsequent could undo that transaction. The decision was probably correct, although the judge below reached the opposite conclusion. Just as in conversion one can prac- tically force the wrongdoer to buy the converted article, so here in " case," when once the tortious act has been committed, the pledgee cannot take away the pledgor's right of action, or even mitigate damages by tendering the note, unless the pledgor elects to accept it. Carpenter v. Dresser, 72 Me. :^-]-]. Trusts — Purchaser for Value — Notice. — Held, thzi a purchaser of a mort- gage belonging to a trust estate, who knows the mortgage to be trust property, but who has learned upon inquiry that the trustee has a general power to change the secu- rities, is not protected where the instrument creating the trust provides that the written consent of the beneficiary to such change shall not be necessary. He is chargeable with the knowledge of the contents of such instrument. Suarezv. De MontigiiVy 37 Is!. Y. Supp. 503. The view taken tends to make the trustee's right the test in such cases, rather than the purchaser's diligence. It closely resembles the doctrme of agency, which charges one who takes a negotiable instrument, signed " per proc." with knowledge of the con- tents of the power of attorney creating the authority so to sign. Altwood v. Mannings, 7 B & C. 278. The court, l.ovvever, does not go to the extent of saying that one who knowingly deals with a trustee does so at his peril. WiiJ.s — Ademption of General Legacy. — Held,?i. a general bequest tea child of a share of testator's ])ersonalty may be satisfied pro tamo by a conveyance of real estate during the life of the testator, where such is the clear intention. Carmichael y.Lathrop, 66 N. W. Rep. 350 (Mich.). See Notes. Wills — Construction — Varying Technical Words. — Devise to A, and, if she have heirs, to her heirs; but if she die without " heirs or heirs of her body," re- mainder over. A child was born and died. Held, that, taking the will in its entirety, with its disregard of precise terms, considering the testator's condition and circum- stances, he meant " children " ; and so A had but a life estate, and the rule in Shelley's Case was not to be applied to give a fee. Campbell v. Noble, 19 So. Rep. 28 ( Ala ). The case is an interesting instance of the variation by the court of the strict legal meaning of words of inheritance. Such a variation is warranted under certain circum- stances. Roberts v. Edwards, 33 Beav. 250; Symers v. Jobson, 16 Simons, 267; 2 Jarman on Wills, 6th Am. ed., 91. When the words of a will do not convey a clear meaning in themselves, the court may consider the surrounding circumstances and the condition of the testator in order to discover his intent. Per Lord Wensleydale, in Grey v. Pearson, 6 H. of L. Cas. 106; Wigram on Extrinsic Evidence, §§ 10-14 ; i Jar- man on Wills, 6th Am. ed., 413, note. • REVIEWS. Commentaries on the Law of Private Corporations. By Seymour D. Thompson, LL. D. San Francisco : Bancroft-Whitney Co. 1895- 1896. 6 Vols., pp. ccliii, 6886. The appearance of this book was heralded by a bookseller's circular, announcing it as " The One and Only Great Work." Since its publica- tion, commendation equally strong has been bestowed by eminent jurists. From this unqualified praise some dissent must be expressed. The book is 7iot " the one and only great work," except in the sense that it under- takes to cover the whole ground and discusses various special topics more fully than any other treatise. As a discussion of the crucial difficulties of corporation law, and as a help to their solution, it is not superior to two other books already before the public. That Judge Thompson's work is of great value, no one can doubt. Lawyers cannot afford to ignore it. The writer of this notice has purchased the six volumes, and does not regret his bargain. But, while this book must be used alongside of