Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/158

142 customs, and thoughts of the people" will not be enforced; but does it follow that it is the agreement with these habits and customs which "makes it law" Again, in regard to Mr. Carter's treatment of the "universal and necessary maxim that every one is presumed to know the law," which he regards as inconsistent with Austin's conception of law, the objection suggests itself which has been expressed by Maule J. in Martindale v. Falkner,' that the maxim ignorantia juris non excusat is incorrectly expressed when put in the form of a presumption. The characterization of Bentham "as most accurately described by the vulgar designation of crank " has attracted some criticism which seems not undeserved. For if it be admitted that Bentham was a "crank," he was a great deal more than that, —he was one who has powerfully affected the development of the law.

It may be observed that criticisms of Bentham's and Austin's theory of law similar in their nature to Mr. Carter's are to be found in Sir Henry Maine's writings.

RECENT CASES.

. — Where the drawer of a check has no funds on deposit with the drawee for its payment, the payee need not present the check for payment before suing on the original demand, even if it can be proved that the drawee would have paid the check if presented. Culver v. Marks, 23 N. E. Rep. 1086 (Ind).

.— Recovery of judgment on a con- tract by the maker of a note to procure an indorser is no bar to an action on the note although the damages on the contract were assessed at the amount due on the note. Vanuxem v. Burr, 24 N. E. Rep. 773 (Mass.).

.— A Minnesota statute empowers the railroad and warehouse commission of that State to compel a common carrier to adopt such charges as the commission " shall declare to be equal and reasonable." There is no provision for a hearing before the commission, and the Supreme Court of Minnesota declared that the statute made its decision final and conclusive as to what are " equal and reasonable " charges. The statute was held unconstitutional. The commission cannot be regarded as a court of justice, and since no appeal from its decision is allowed, the statute would deprive the carriers of their property "without due process of law." Bradley, Gray, and Lamar, JJ., dissenting. ''Chicago, M., & St. P. Ry. Co. v. State of Minnesota '', 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 462.

. — An act of Congress gives the Circuit Courts power to issue writs of habeas corpus on the petition of a person alleged to be in custody "for an act done or omitted in pursuance of a law of the United States." Held, that the word "law" is there used in the broad sense, and includes any duty of a United States officer which can be inferred from the general scope of his duties.

The Constitution declares, that the President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Held, that he can direct a United States marshall to accompany and protect from a threatened assault a justice of the Supreme Court while in the discharge of his official duties.

On both these points Fuller, C. J., and Lamar, J., dissented. Cunningham v. Neagle, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 658