Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/306

286 286 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. thing in the facts to take the case out of the rule. The court distinguish the prin- cipal case from Rylands v. Fletcher, supra, because here the injury resulted from a natural user of the land, while there it was caused by a non-natural user. This seems like drawing the line between a large reservoir and a small one. The court made another distinction between the cases, in that here, as the plaintiff became tenant after the cistern was constructed, and as he used water from it, he must be taken to have consented to its being on the premises. Anderson v. Oppeftheinier, 5 Q. B. D. 602. The numerous exceptions have left but little of the original rule. Torts — Legal Cause. — Defendants were owners of a bridge which they negli- gently allowed to be in bad repair. The plaintiff in Maine was travelling for pleasure on Sunday, in violation of a statute of that State, and his horse was injured by a defect in the defendants' bridge. Held, that the plaintiff cannot recover. Beacham v. Frop7-ietors of Portsmouth Bridge, 40 Atl. Rep. 1066 (N. H.). The ground taken by the court is that the .plaintiff's wrong necessarily contributed to the injury, the same doctrine having been held in Crafty v. City of Bangor, 57 Me. 423. Lyons v. Desotelle, 124 Mass. 387, accord. The weight of authority, however, is contrary, and it is generally held on a similar state of facts that the breach of the Sun- day law is a mere condition under which the accident happens, rather than a contributing cause. Sutton v. Tozvn of fVauwatosa, 29 Wis. 21. This view is certainly a more cor- rect interpretation of the facts, for the accident would have been as likely to happen on any other clay in the week. It is now provided by a recent Maine statute that the law against Sunday travelling shall not affect the right or remedy of a party arising from an injury received on that day. Torts — Lord Campbell's Act — Jurisdiction. — Plaintiff's son, a subject of Belgium, being on the high seas, in a Belgian vessel, was killed in a collision caused by the negligent management of a steamship belonging to defendants, //eld, that plaintiff has no right of action under Lord Campbell's Act. Adam v. The British and Foreign Steamship Co., [1898] 2 Q. B. 430. The question is largely, if not entirely, one of construction. For, admitting the power of Parliament to give a right of action for a cause arising outside the jurisdic- tion, a statute should not be construed thus to contravene the principles of interna- tional comity without the clearest language. For this reason the case is preferable to a prior contrary decision. The Explorer, L. R. 3 A. & E. 289. The American authorities agree that no action will lie under statutes similar to Lord Cajripbell's Act where the place of kilhng is outside the State. Whitford v. Panama R. K. Co., 23 N. Y. 465. Whether, under such circumstances, recovery may be had in a domestic forum under a foreign statute is a mooted question. Dennick v. Central R. R. Co., T03 U. S. II ; Ash V. Baltimore &> Ohio R. R. Co., 72 Md. 144. Nothing in the prin- cipal case runs counter to the proposition that the statute applies for the benefit of aliens where the killing is within the jurisdiction. Philpott v. Mo. /^ac. /iy. Co., 85 Mo. 164. Upon the whole subject, see Tiffany, Death by Wrongful Act, §§ 195 et seq. REVIEWS. The Conflict of Laws in the Province of Quebec. By E. Lafleur. Montreal. C. Theoret. i8g8. pp. xvi, 267. This interesting book is the result of a course of lectures delivered by the author as Professor of International Law in McGill University. He treats of the law of the Province of Quebec alone ; a law derived from the pre-Napoleonic French law, and found in the Provincial Codes in the decisions of the Provincial Courts, and in the decisions, on appeal from Quebec, of the Supreme Court of Canada and of the Privy Council. The author cites few authorities except such decisions and the commen- taries of the French jurists, — a proper course, since " Conflict of Laws " is a branch of the municipal law, and decisions of a State where a dif- ferent system of law prevails can be no safe guide to the law of Quebec. For the same reason, the Quebec decisions cannot be authoritative with us.