Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/525

505 RECENT CASES. 50$ Constitutional Law — Eminent Domain — Just Compensation. — Held, that when part of one's land is condemned for highway purposes, it is not unconstitu- tional to provide that the commissioners in fixing the compensation shall take into consideration the special benefits to the rest of his land from the improvement. Ran- dolpli V. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 41 Atl. Rep. 960 (N. J., Sup. Ct.). In Loweree. City of Ne'iUark,-^ N. J. Law, 151, it was held constitutional to provide that a special assessment for benefits arising from the opening of a street should be set off against any award for land taken. On the ground that it practically provided for such a set-off a statute like that in the principal case was supported in Newby v. Platte County, 25 Mo. 258. Mangles v. Chosen Freeholders, 55 N. J. Law, 88, sustained a simi-ar statute without any resort to the taxing power, and the present case approves this con- clusion. The reasoning is that the constitution simply requires just compensation tc be paid when property is taken for public purposes, and that the courts cannot say that an owner has not been justly compensated if paid the difference between the value of his land before and after the taking of a part. This reasoning seems entirely sound, but many courts, probably a majority, would hold that the value of the land actually taken must be paid anyway, special benefits being considered only in estimating damage to other land not taken. Wagner v. Gage County, 3 Neb. 237. Constitutional Law — Eminent Domain — Lease. — A tenant from year to year held over with the landlord's consent after the termination of a year, although prior thereto the State had commenced proceedings to condemn the land. Thereafter the land was condemned and the tenant claimed compensation. Held, that the tenant was not entitled to hold over as against the State, and therefore he cannot have com- pensation. /// re State House, 41 Atl. Rep. 1004 (R. I.). In accord is Schreiber v. Chicago &* Evauston R. R. Co., 115 III. 340. It is well settled that a lessee for a term of years is entitled to compensation for a taking of the property leased. Storm Lake v. Iowa Falls, etc. Ry. Co., 62 Iowa, 218. And so a lessee under a parol lease from year to year. Getz v. Philadelphia dr* Reading R. R. Co., 105 Pa. St. 547. In the principal case therefore the tenant would have been given com- pensation had he acquired a right to hold for another year before condemnation pro- ceedings were begun. However, the commencement of the proceedings prior to the termination of the year for which the tenant rightfully held was notice of the intended exercise of the paramount right of the State to both landlord and tenant. Therefore a renewal of the lease by the mutual consent of the landlord and tenant should be taken to be made with regard to the pending proceedings instituted by the State, and as terminable when the land should be finally condemned. Constitutional Law — Taxation. — A statute authorized State loans to persons whose crops had failed the preceding year of the money needed to buy seed grain. In an action by a county to recover the amount of such a loan from the borrower, held, that the statute is unconstitutional. Deeritig 6^ Co. v. Peterson, 77 N. W. Rep. 568 (Minn ). See Notes. Constitutional Law — Unreasonable Sf.arches and Seizures. — An Illinois statute provided for the issue of a search warrant upon the affidavit of a manufacturer of beverages that he has reason to believe and does believe that a person, in violation of the act, is using or has used any of complainant's bottles, casks, etc. Held, that the statute is in conflict with that section of the Illinois Constitution which prohibits the issue of search warrants except upon probable cause supported by affidavit. Lipp- man v. People, 51 N. E. Rep. 872 (111.). Where a statute requires a showing of probable cause, it is well settled that the act is not satisfied by a mere expression of deponent's belief unaccompanied by a declara- tion of the facts on which that belief is founded. Swart v. Kimball, 43 Mich. 443, 451. The law is the same where the requirement is found in a constitution, but where no statute has sanctioned such opinion evidence. Johnston v. United States, 87 Fed. Rep. 187. In no former case, however, has a legislative enactment been held unconstitu- tional because declaring an expression of belief to be equivalent to proof of probable cause. But, although the authorities cited are perhaps not precisely in point, the pres- ent decision seems clearly correct on principle. To hold otherwise would conflict with common-law notions as to the value of hearsay and opinion evidence, and would deprive the constitutional guaranty of much of its usefulness. The court further de- clared the statute in question objectionable as authorizing a search warrant for merely private ends. Robinson v. Richardson, 3 Gray, 454. But surely the protection of property and the enforcement of a criminal statute passed for that purpose should be deemed a public object. Constructive Trusts. — Certain cattle mortgaged to the defendant were de- stroyed by a tort of a third party. The defendant, on a judgment against the tort-feasor,