Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 2.djvu/408

 390 HARVARD LAW REVIEW.

This decision follows J^ee v. Audley, i Cox, 324, and He Sayers* Trusts, L. R. 6 Eq. 319, and overrules the later case of Cooper v. Laroche^ 17 Ch. D. 368. See also, in accord with the present decision, Gray on Perpetuities, §§ 215, 215a, in which these cases are discussed, and the rule laid down that, ** for the purpose of determining questions of remoteness, men and women are deemed capable (»f having issue so long as they live."

Real pROPERxy — Tenancy by Entirety — Statutes relating to Mar- ried Women. — The statutes which allow a married woman to own sep&raie property do not change the common-law rule, that a deed of real estate to a man and his wife conveys a tenancy by entirety. BaJker v. Steivart, 19 Pac. Rep. 904 (Kan.). An elaborate dissenting opinion was rendered.

Statute of Frauds — Agreement made in Court. — An agreement made in open court, and acted upon by the court, is not within the Statute of Frauds. Savage v. Blanchardy 19 N. E. Rep. 396 (Mass.).

Statute of Limitations — Adverse Possession — Color of Title. — Color of title is not such adverse possession as will bar, under the Statute of Limitations, an action of ejectment. Turner v. Stephenson^ 40 N. W. Rep. 735 (Mich.).

Telegraph Companies — Failure to Deliver Message — Notice. — Action by the receiver for delay in delivering the following message: ** Willie died yesterday evening at six o'clock; Mrill be buried at M., Sunday evening." IJeld^ that, in the absence of notice to the operator, damages must be limited to the injury that would naturally and apparently result from delay in sending such a message, and that injury to fraternal feelings cannot be taken into account, there being nothing in the message to show that the receiver was the brother of the deceased. IVestem Union Tel, Co, v. Brown, 10 S. W. Rep. 323 (Tex.).

The general right of the receiver to recover for damages resulting from delay has been universally allowed in this country and denied in England. (Gray on Telegraphs, §§ 72, 73.)

The case is opposed to the general rule that for mental anguish alone a party cannot recover either in tort or contract (Wood's Mayne on Damages, ist Am. ed., § 54, n.), but follows earlier Texas decisions. J^eiie v. W. U. T. Co., 55 Tex. 308. See, however, contra, /Gusset v. H^, U, T, Co,, 19 N. W. Rep. 408.

Trover — Removal of Goods by Teamster in Good Faith. — Plaintiff hired a room and left goods there without fastening the door. Defendant, a job teamster, in good faith removed the goods under the direction of the owner of the house, and delivered them to the latter at another place. Held, that de. fendant was not liable for conversion. It is settled that whoever receives goods from one in actual, though illegal, possession, and restores them to such person, is not liable. The principle may be extended to the present case, where the goods were received from one having apparent control, accompanied with capacity of investing himself with actual physical possession. Gurley v. Armstead, 19 N. E, Rep. 389 (Mass.).

Trover — Warehouseman — Course of Business. — A warehouseman who receives mortgaged goods for storage, and afterwards delivers them to a third person, on production of the warehouse receipt, is liable to the mortgagee, whose mortgage is recorded in another county, although he has no notice of the claim. Hudmon v. DuBose, 5 So. Rep. 162 (Ala.).

In England, '*a merely ministerial dealing with goods at the request of the apparent owner having actual control of them, is not conversion.'' Pollock, ^Torts, 293; Greenway v. Fisher, i C. & P. 190 (Packer); HoUins v. Fowler^ L. R. 7 H. L. 757, at 767-8, semble.

Trusts — Charitable Trls^fs — Effect of Church Laws and Canons. — Archbishop Purcell, of Ohio, in 1879 made an assignment, in his individual capacity, of all his property for the payment of his debts, expressly excepting all property held by him in trust for others. Certain property was vested in him to hold according to the laws and canons of the Roman Catholic Church for the use of priests and their congregations, schools and their teachers, for sisters of charity and orphans in their charge, together with certain land for use as burial- places. None of the beneficiaries were incorporated societies, and they were constantly changing; moreover, the Archbishop, without opposition from any one concerned, had frequently exercised acts of dominion over property so coming to him, both selling and substituting other property. Held, that there