Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 5.djvu/57

41 RECENT CASES. 4 1 Damages — Replevin. — In an action of replevin for a race-horse, all dam- ages sustained by reason of the detention may be recovered. But fines incurred to certain racing associations for failure to race the horse during the period of detention, which the plaintiff was obliged to pay before he was permitted to race the horse again, cannot be recovered. Riley v. Littlefield, 47 N. W. Rep. 576 (Mich.). Damages — Telegraph Companies — Mental Suffering. — The receiver of a telegraphic message, the delivery of which has been negligently delayed by the telegraph company, cannot recover damages for mental suffering alone, unaccompanied with other injury. Chase v. W. U. Tel. Co., 44 Fed'. Rep. 554. This case is opposed to the growing tendency of the courts to allow damages for mental suffering. There would seem to be no reason why, since the law protects mental security, damages for mental suffering should not be given. See Wadswortk v. Tel. Co., 86 Tenn. 695, contra. Equity — Combination in Restraint of Trade. — The defendant sold his bakery business to the complainant corporation, and was employed by the corpora- tion to continue the business as agent of the corporation. After operating under this arrangement for a time, the defendant repudiated the sale, resumed possession under the old firm-name, and refused to account to the complainant. The bill was brought for an injunction, an accounting, and for a receiver, pending the suit. The complainant was practically a "trust," organized to monopolize the business, and had secured control of thirty five leading bakeries in twelve different States. Held, that while a case was made for a receiver, pending litigation, between ordinary parties, the prayer would be denied, as equity would not encourage a combination in restraint of trade, and probably illegal, under Act Cong. July 2, 1890. American Biscuit Co. v. Klotz, 44 Fed. Rep. 721. Equity — Parol Contract to Convey Land — Enforcement. — Plaintiff, the mortgagee of land owned by defendant and another, orally agreed with defendant to relinquish his mortgage, and then together to acquire the interest of the other owner. Plaintiff performed his part by relinquishing his mortgage ; but the defendant acquired title to the whole land, and conveyed. Held, that equity, though it cannot enforce the oral contract, will restore the status quo ante by reviving the mortgage as against defendant, and a purchaser from him with notice. Mitchell v. Graham, 8 So. Rep. 646 (Miss.). Evidence — Witness — Assignment of a Chose in Action. — A married woman, having a claim for damages against the defendant company, assigned all her interest in the claim to a third party. Held, that in a suit brought by such third party against the defendant company in the name of the married woman, the husband would be a competent witness, although he was incompetent so long as his wife had an interest in the suit. Railroad Co. v. Read, 12 S. E. Rep. 395 ( Va -)- Mortgages — Subrogation. — Though a mortgage of a wife's separate estate, given to secure the payment of a debt of her husband, is invalid in South Carolina, yet, where part of the money raised by such a mortgage is used to pay off a prior valid mortgage, the second mortgagee will be subrogated to the rights of the prior mortgagee, and may enforce his mortgage to that extent. People's Nat. Bank v. Epstin et al., 44 Fed. Rep. 403. Negligence — Contractual Relation — No Liability to Stranger. — A builder contracted with a company for the construction of a building to be used as a hotel, and on completion it was turned over to, and accepted by, the company. But owing to negligent construction, there is a latent defect which results in injury to the plaintiff, who is a guest at the hotel. Held, that the contractor is not liable in tort to the plaintiff, since his only duty is to the company. Cartain v. Somerset, 21 Atl. Rep. 244 (Pa.). Negligence — Contractual Relation — No Liability to Stranger. — Where there is no contractual relation between a mortgagee of property and the valuer on whose valuation the mortgagee has relied, the valuer is not liable to the mortgagee in damages by reason of the valuation having been made without clue skill and care. ■ An action in such a case could not succeed except as an action for deceit, in which case it would be necessary to show fraud. Scholes v. Brooks, 63 L. T. N. S. 837 (Eng.). Real Property — Contract for Purchase. — Where there is a contract for the absolute sale of land, though a note given for the first instalment of the