Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/774

738 738 HARVARD LAW REVIEW But in the United States an interned subject of an enemy country was, by the President's proclamation of February 5, 1918, in accordance with a provision in the act, brought within the term "enemy" in the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 191 7. See 40 Stat, at L. 411. This has the effect of putting such interned enemy subjects under a disabiUty to sue except in the limited class of suits specifically mentioned by the act. See Tortoriello v. Seghorn, 103 Atl. 393, 394 (N. J. Eq.); Arndt-Ober v. Metropolitan Opera Co., 182 App. Div. 513, 519; 162 N. Y. Supp. 944, 948. Warranty — Implied Warranty of Plans and Specifications. — The plaintiff contracted to build a dry dock for the government in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by government officials. These provided first, for the relocation of an intersecting sewer, which work the plaintiff performed. Due to a defect in the plans the sewer proved insufficient and burst, flooding the excavation of the dry dock. The government refused to assxame responsi- bility for the damage done, and upon the plaintiff's refusal to continue with the work annulled the contract. The plaintiff sued for work done and his profits. Held, that he coidd recover. The United States v, Spearin, U. S. Sup. Ct. Off., October Term, 1918, Nos. 44 and 45. No supervening difficulty short of making performance impossible will excuse a party from completing that which he has contracted to do. Walton v. Water- house, 2 Wms. Saimders, 422 a, note 2; Beebe v. Johnson, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 500; Phillips V. Stevens, 16 Mass. 238. Thus, destruction by fire, lightning or sub- sidence of the soil will not warrant a refusal on the part of the builder to render full performance, or entitle him to compensation for what he has already done. Adams v. Nichols, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 275; School District v. Dauchy, 25 Conn. 530; Stees V. Leonard, 20 Minn. 494; Dermott v. Jones, 2 Wall. (U. S.) i. But where the difficulty results from defective plans and specifications, the general rule has been held not to apply, since the owner impliedly warrants the suffi- ciency of the plans he submits. Bentley v. State, 73 Wis. 416, 41 N. W. 338; Faber v. City of New York, 223 N. Y. 496, 118 N. E. 609. Penn. Bridge v. City of New Orleans, 222 Fed. 737. The English and some American courts deny the existence of such a warranty. Thorn v. Mayor of London, i A. C. 120; Mag- nan V. Fuller, 222 Mass. 530, in N. E. 399; Leavitt v. Dover, 67 N. H. 94, 32 Atl. 156; Lonergan v. San Antonio Loan &* Trust Co., loi Tex. 63, 104 S. W. 1 06 1. It seems erroneous to lay down a hard-and-fast rule that an owner does or does not warrant his plans. The existence of an implied warranty, as in the law of sales, should depend upon whether there has been a justifiable reliance by one on the other's judgment, which the particular facts of each case alone can decide. See Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton, no U. S. 108; Williston, Sales, § 231. The respective knowledge of the parties, the opportunity for inspection by the builder, and the visibleness of the defects should all be con- sidered in determining the question. BOOK REVIEWS International Rivers. A Monograph based on Diplomatic Documents. By G. Kaeckenbeeck, B.C.L. Grotius Society Publications, No. i. London: Street and Maxwell. 1918. pp. xxvi. 255. "Et quidem naturali jure communia . sunt omnium haec: . . . aqua pro- fluens ..." (Just. Inst., II, 1,1). At the Congress of Vienna in 1815 a body of diplomats controlling the destinies of the world took up for the first tiine as a general European problem the question of navigation upon "international