Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/111

95 RECENT CASES. 95 Navigable Stream — Right of Action for Obstruction. — The pkin- tiffs were riparian owners on the banks of a navigable stream. They alleged that the defendant had obstructed this stream so that the plaintiffs were unable to transport certain wood which was piled upon their land, and which they owned, whereby the wood became rotted and greatly depreciated in value. There were also allegations of other special damage. It was held that the plaintiffs could not maintain this action. For the right of navigation is a public right, and an obstruction of navigation is, in the absence of special circumstances, a public nuisance, but not a private wrong. To maintain a private action, damage differ- ing in kind from that suffered by the rest of the public having occasion to use the stream must be shown, and not merely damage greater in degree. " To consti- tute special damage there must be an invasion or violation of some private right of the individual, as distinguished from the public right which he has of using a public highway in common with the rest of the public," Swanson et al, y. Mississippi K. R. Boom Co., 44 N. W. Rep. 986 ( Minn. ). Negligence — Statutory Action for Death of Human Being — Meas- ure OF Damages, — In an action by a husband for the negligent killing of his wife, evidence that after marriage there was a marked change for the better in the husband's habits and in his pecuniary affairs is admissible on the question of damages. The statutes giving an action for the death of a human being afford compensation unknown to the common law, and are not to be confined to mere pecuniary damage. Simmons v. McConnell, adm''r, 10 S. E. Rep. 838 ( Va. ). Negligence — Sunday Laws. — Violation of the statute prohibiting unnec- essary travel on Sunday will not preclude recovery for an injury received through the defendant's negligence. The plaintiff's illegal conduct is a condition, not a cause, of the injury. D. L. <& W. R. R. Co. v. Trautwein, 19 Atl. Rep. 178 (N. J.). Notaries Public — Eligibility of Women. — Women are not, in the ab- sence of statute, eligible as notaries public ; and the statute authorizing their appointment as attorneys and justices of the peace does not change the rule. Opinion of the Justices, 23 N. E. Rep. 850 (Mass.). Pensions — Exemption from Attachment. — A statute of Iowa provides that pensions shall be exempt from attachment, not only when in the " actual possession " of the pensioner, but also when " invested " by him. Under this statute the court held that where pension money was invested in the services of a stallion the colts gotten were exempt from attachment. Diamond v. Palmer 44 N. W. Rep. 819 (la.). QuASi-CoNTRACTS — COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES. — The plaintiff, a step- daughter, lived with her step-father from the time she was 9 years old till she marred, at 26; she lived as a member of the family, doing housework, receiving her board and clothing, and money from time to time ; she now seeks to recover wages for services rendered after she became of age. Held, she must show an ex- press promise by her step-father to pay wages; the facts, as above stated, are not such as to raise a promise implied by law. Harris v. Smith, 44 N. W. Rep. 169 (Mich.). QUASi-CoNTRACTS — INSANITY — NECESSARIES. — An obligation will be im- plied against the estate of a lunatic to repay sums expended to provide her with necessaries. In re Rhodes, 38 W. R. 385 (Eng. ). See to the same effect In re Renz, 44 N. W. Rep. 598 ( Mich. ). Real Property — Deeds — Delivery. — A married woman, for the purpose of putting her land out of the reach of her husband, executed a conveyance thereof to her children, reserving a life estate to herself. She signed and acknowledged the deed, and caused it to be recorded ; but took possession of it, intending to keep it until her death. The children, who were with one exception infants, knew of and assented to the conveyance. Held, these facts constituted prima facie a delivery and acceptance of the deed. Coler v. Coler et al., 23 N. E. Rep. 687 ( Ind. ). Real Property — Easements — Inchoate Right. — A statute provided that on purchase of certain lands all rights or easements relating to it should be extinguished on compensation for loss thus inflicted. The plaintiffs' house was built in 1867. The purchase referred to by the statute was made in 1877. Held.^ that the inchoate right to light was extinguished, and compensation due the plaintiffs therefor. Barlow v. Ross, 24 Q. B. Div. 381 ( Eng. ).