Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/161

145 .- The defendant had a right of way of necessity over the plaintiff's land to a highway. The highway was subsequently discontinued. Held, that the defendant had no right to pass over a part of the discontinued highway belonging to the plaintiff in order to reach another highway, even although there was no other way to get out of his land. Morse v. Benson, 24 N. E. Rep. 675 (Mass.).

. — The defendants obtained a judgment against the plaintiffs in France, and brought an action on the judgment here. The plaintiffs brought a bill for discovery in aid of their defence, and the defendants in a plea set up the French judgment. Held, that a judgment rendered in a court of a civilized country having jurisdiction of the subject-matter in an action in which the defendant, a citizen of the United States, appeared and defended, cannot be impeached when sued on here, though the defendant was denied the benefit of our rules of evidence and procedure, and though the judgment was based on false testimony and was erroneous. Hilton v. Guyott, 42 Fed. Rep. 249. See also McMullen v. Richie , 41 Fed. Rep. 502.

.— A party selling goods to an insolvent firm on the strength of a false representation by such firm to a mercantile agency as to its financial condition, may rescind the sale and recover the goods. ''Gainesville Nat. Bank et al. v. Bamberger et al''., 13 S. W. Rep. 959 (Tex.).

.—A promise to support a child fifteen years old until he becomes of age, is n an agreement "not to be performed within a year" within the meaning of the Stat of Frauds, since such promise might be fully performed within a year if the child should die within that time. Woolbridge v. Stern, 42 Fed. Rep. 311

.—Although an apparent statute has the signatures of the presiding officers of the House and Senate, and of the Governor, the courts will declare it void if they find from an examination of the journals of the Houses that it never in fact passed the Legislature. Rode v. Phelps, 45 N. W. Rep. 493 (Mich.).

.—A message was delivered to a telegraph company, addressed to "A. B., care of C. D., Fort Scott, Kansas." The latter refused to receive the telegram. held, that an instruction to the effect that if C. D. gave the company's messenger such instructions as would enable him with ordinary diligence to find the addressee, then it devolved upon the company to deliver the message as instructed was erroneous, as imposing too great a duty upon the telegraph company. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Young, 13 S.W. Rep. 985 (Tex.). In Pope v. W. U. Tel. Co., 9 Brad. (III. App.), an instruction that the company was bound only to deliver the telegram at the office address given, was held erroneous, as being too great a limitation on the duty of the company. See also Gray, Communication by Telegraph, § 23.

.— Where statutes provide for the survival of certain delictual actions to the executor or administrator of the deceased, and also give an action to the personal representative for the benefit of the widow or next of kin, the personal representative may recover substantial damages in two actions, one under each statute. Davis v. St. Louis, I. M., &' S. Ry. Co., 13 S. W. Rep. 80i (Ark.). This case follows ''Needhamn v. Ry. Co''., 38 Vt. 294. For a discussion of cases reaching contrary results in Maine, Illinois, and Kansas, see 28 Am. L. Reg. 385, 513.

REVIEWS.

. By A. H. Marsh, Q. C. Toronto; Carswell & Co., 1890. 8vo. Pages 140.

The author is the Equity Lecturer to the Law School in connection with the Law Society of Upper Canada, and to this fact this book owes its existence. It is written in a lively and forcible style, and