Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/256

240 240 HARVARD LAW REVIEW, future, and not to any document as existing. And for this reason, that the language of the will was of a future character. Sir J. P. AVilde refused, in Goods of Mary Reid^ to give effect to a paper prepared after the will, though it was apparently sufficiently described in the will and was followed by a good codicil. But in most cases the rule of Goods of Truro would probably lead to the same result as the test here suggested. RECENT CASES. [These cases are selected from the current English and American decisions not yet regularly reported, for the purpose of giving the latest and most progressive work of the courts. No pains are spared in selecting all the cases, comparatively few in number, which disclose the general prog- ress and tendencies of the law. When such cases are particularly suggestive, comments and refer- ences are added, if practicable.] Agency — Implied Power — Extrinsic Fact. — Where an agent has authority to borrow money on exceptional terms in cases of emergency, the lender is not bound to inquire whether the emergency has actually arisen ; but if he acted in good faith and without notice that the agent has exceeded his authority, he can recover from the principal. Montaignac v. Shitta^ 15 App. Cas. 357 (Eng.). The principle of this case would seem to be that where the agent is empowered to act on the existence of an extrinsic fact the principal is bound by the agent's representation as to the existence of that fact when it is peculiarly within the agent's knowledge. If so the case would be contrary to Grant v. Norway^ 10 C. B. 665, and in accord with N. V. &^N. H. R. R. v. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30. Bills and Notes — Parol Evidence. — Parol evidence is admissible to show that a demand promissory note made by a daughter to her father was in fact executed under an agreement that it should never be enforced, but should serve as a mere memorandum of an advancement. Brook v. Latimer, 24 Pac. Rep. 946 (Kan.). Conspiracy — Malice — An action will lie for a combination or conspiracy to drive a trader out of business by fraudulent and malicious acts. The grava- men of a civil action is malice, conspiracy being matter of inducement only. Van Horn v. Van Horn et. al., 20 Atl. Rep. 485 (N. J.). Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, 23 Q. B. D. 598, was cited and approved. Constitutional Law — Equal Protection. — The allowance of the right of appeal to citizens of the State at large in all cases of conviction of crimes before a justice of the peace, and a denial of such right to citizens of Detroit, convicted of similar offences in the police court of that city, where the sentence imposed does not exceed twenty days imprisonment or a $25 fine, does not deprive citizens of Detroit of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed to all citizens of the United States by the Constitution, Amendment 14, § i,as the act providing for appeals from the police court of Detroit operates equally on all persons within its jurisdiction. Sullivan v. Hang, 46 N. W. Rep. 795 (Mich.). Constitutional Law — Police Pow^er — Intoxicating Liquors. — A San Francisco ordinance provided that one seeking a liquor-dealer's license must first obtain the written consent of a majority of the police commissioners, and in case of a refusal in the first instance, such consent was to be given upon the written recommendation of not less than twelve citizens owning real estate in the block in which the business was to be carried on. Held, the ordinance was constitu- tional. Crowley v. Christensen, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 13. See note on this case supra, p. 236. Contracts — Interpretation — Charter-Party. — By the charter-party the charterer contracted to pay demurrage for delays over and above the lay-days allowed, and the owner agreed to render all customary assistance in unloading. The lay-days were exceeded on account of a strike by the dock laborers employed 1 38 L.J. M. 8. (P. & M.) X ; 4 Gray's Cas. Prop. aaj.