Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/94

68 68 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. /■ disposed of, against his will, by paying his proportion of the alleged mis- appropriation (reckoning the proportion according to the number of the plaintiff's shares as compared with the whole number). The case oi Hen- derson V. Bank of Australia, L. R. 40 Ch. D. 170, is cited only as to " Notice of Meeting " (Vol. 3, s. 3862), and not as to the power of a corpo- ration to pension the family of a deceased oflficial. There is no citation of Tauntonw. Royal Ins. Co., 2 Hem. & Miller, 135, where a dissenting stock- holder failed to obtain an injunction restraining the corporation from pay- ing losses not legally collectible under the policy ; nor of Huiton v. West Cork R. Co., L. R. 23 Ch. D. 654, where it was held that a company in process of winding up cannot, against the objection of a holder of debenture stock, expend a portion of its funds in gratuities to servants or directors. Nor is there any reference to the cases of People v. Eng- land^ 27 Hun, 139, In re Greene, 52 Fed. Rep. 104, p. 119, and Brundred V. Rice, 49 Ohio St., p. 650 (s. c, 32 N. E. Rep., p. 172), as to the liability of a stockholder for the crime, tort, or ultra vires contract of a corpo- ration. There is no mention oi Northern R. R. v. Concord R. R., 50 N. H, 166, where a contract made by a board of directors, near the end of their term, for the purpose of preventing the management of the road from passing into the hands of their successors, was held invalid because of such purpose. Of course, no one can complain that the book does not contain all the latest authorities up to the very moment of going to press. But it is to be regretted that the Preface, dated January i, 1895, does not state the precise time to which the authorities are brought down. In the absence of any explanation on this point, some readers may assume that the work gives all important corporation cases appearing in the advance numbers of The West Company Reporters during the year 1893. Such an assumption would be erroneous, as may be seen by looking in vain for Mobile (5r* Ohio R. Co. v. Nicholas, 12 So. Rep. 723, or BeitjnaJi v. Steiner^ 13 So. Rep. 87. A few mistakes in proof-reading and verification of references have been noticed. Vol. 5, s. 6428, *' burroughs " for boroughs. Vol. 4, s. 4564, "Chief Justice Rolt" for Lord Justice Rolt (as correctly named in s. 4566, note I ). Vol. I, s. 90, " Chancellor Green " for Chancellor Zabriskie (an error which was probably copied from 90 Am. Dec. 618). In Vol. i, s. 67, note I, the celebrated English case of Natusch v. Innng% credited to the Tennessee Reports, being cited as found in " 2 Coop. Ch. (Tenn.) 358," instead of in 2 Cooper Eng. Chan. Rep., Tempore Cottenham, 358 (or, as elsewhere cited by Judge Thompson, in the Appendix to Gow on Partnership). j. s. A Treatise on the American Law of Attachment and Garnish- ment. By Roswell Shinn of the Chicago Bar. Indianapolis : The Bowen-Merrill Company. 1896. 2 vols., pp. xxxi, x, 1623. The author's aim has been "to state the rules and principles of con- struction and procedure of what may be termed the American Law of Attachment, including Garnishment," and not " to set out the separate statutory provisions." That this purely statutory branch of the law is susceptible of a general treatment has been demonstrated by Drake and other writers. There can be no doubt that a reliable book of reference is almost indispensable to the modern practitioner. The object of the