Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/374

354 354 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. Contracts — Compromise — Consideration. — The defendants promised the plaintiffs to perform a certain railroad reorganization agreeme.it. The alleged con- sideration for that promise was that the plaintiffs, the reorganization committee, should discontinue certain litigation pending against the defendants. In an action to enforce the contract, held, that this forbearance to press a disputed claim constitutes a good consideration. Cox v. Stokes, 51 N. E. Rep. 316 (N. Y.), See Notes, 12 Harv. Law Rev. 276. Contracts — Executors and Devisees. — Atthedeathof testator certain houses contracted by him to be built on his land were not completed. The executor attempted to rescind the contract in the interest of the personal estate. In an administration suit, held, that the devisee of the land is entitled to have the work completed at the expense of the personal estate. In re Day, [1898] 2 Ch. D. 5x0. The question here presented seems not often to have been considered by the courts. In general the executor haS the legal power to dispose of his testator's surviving con- tracts at his discretion for the best interests of the estate. Schouler, Execs, and Admrs., § 251 ; VVoerner, Admrs., 791. A clear distinction seems possible, however, between surviving contracts which were entered into for the permanent benefit of the inheritance, and those, the principal object of which was a personal benefit to the tes- tator, which object is immediately defeated by his death. The former class, including the contract in the principal case, should be performed as intended by the testator, while the latter seem not properly subject to a claim of the heir or devisee of the land. Gray v. Hawkin's Admr., 8 Ohio St. 450. Criminal Law — Larceny — Fixtures. — Held, that copper boxes connected with a still in such a way-as to make them part of the freehold are subjects of larceny. elements. Commofiwealtk, 47 S. W. Rep. 450 (Ky.). This decision is plainly at variance with the common law. At the common law things that in any way savored of realty were not the subjects of larceny. The case rests upon the authority of an earlier Kentucky decision, Smith v Commonwenlth, 14 Bush. 31, in which it was held that the taking of chandeliers attached to gas pipes in the wall of a house, with intent to steal, was larceny, although the same court has held, contrary to the weight of authority, that such chandeliers are real estate. Johnson v. Wiseman, 4 Met. 357 (Ky.). The decisions can only be regarded as judicial legislation upon a subject which would better have been left to statutory regulation. Equity — Political Parties — Jurisdiction. — A bill in equity was filed to re- strain a chairman of a county committee of a political party from erasing from the roll of such committee the names of duly elected members. Held, that the bill should be dismissed. Keams v. Howley, 41 Atl. Rep. 273 (Pa.). It is generally agreed that equity has no jurisdiction to interfere in the internal affairs of a voluntary association, even where the duties and obligations of members are regulated by contract, unless property rights are involved. Kerr, Injunctions, 3d ed., 564. Cf. CHara v. Stack, 90 Pa. St. 477. The present case is even stronger ; for de- fendant was clearly under no contractual obligation to plaintiffs on which the bill might be.founded. The great difficulties in the way of judicial interference in such a case furnish an additional reason for the refusal to entertain jurisdiction. 2 Story, Equity Jurisprudence, 13th Ed., 263. Cf. Graves v. Graves, 13 Ir. Ch. 182. Equity Procedure — Pleas. — The defendant in a suit in equity filed a plea set- ting up, in bar of the suit, matter already alleged in the bill. Held, that the plea is bad, since the objection should have been taken by demurrer. Davis v. Davis, 41 Atl. Rep. 353(N.J.,Ch.). , .. This unquestionable decision follows from the very nature of a plea in equity, which is to set up new matter. In early times this principle was carried so far that negative pleas were not allowed. Langdell, Equity Pleading, § 102. If a defendant could thus reiterate facts alleged by plaintiff, the latter might take issue on the plea, and then the absurdity would be presented of a party traversing an allegation which he had already admitted on the record. For the civil law maxim, qui fonit fatettir, prevails also in equity. Evidence — Confessions. — On a trial for murder, certain statements of the pris- oner, made to a public officer, were admitted in evidence. The officer told the prisoner that he need not say anything unless he wished to, and that what he said might he used for him or against him. On exceptions, held, that the evidence was properly admitted. Roeselv. State, 41 Atl. Rep. 408 (N J., C. A.). The general rule is well settled that confessions can never be admitted in evidence when the prisoner in making them has been in the slightest degree influenced hv any threat or promise of favor as regards the trial, if such threat or promise is made bv an officer of the State. Bram v. U. S., 168 U. S. 532. It has been decided that a mere