Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/136

120 120 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. Real Property — Conveyance of a Way. — A piece of land was laid out, and a lot sold to X fronting on one of the plotted streets ; and the question now is whether the grantor's heirs or the grantees are entitled to the compensation, paid by the city in condemnation proceedings for one-half the "street." i%/^, the grantee is entitled; the street laid out, though not opened, is a street as to the grantee, and the same rea- sons exist for having the title pass to the centre as in the case of a highway, even though the lines of the plot are along the edge of the way. Anthony v. Providence, 28 Atl. Rep. 766 (R. I.). The case is a sound one and contains a good discussion of the principles on which this rests, yet it seems odd that the court does not recognize the fact that the opposite view is taken as this question was up for the first time in R. I. In accord with princi- pal case see Bissell v. R. R., 23 N. Y. 61 ; Fishery. Smith, 9 Gray, 441 (Mass.). Contra, Leigh W.Jack, L. R. 5 Ex. Div. 264; Bangor House v. Brown, 33 Me. 309. Property— Land Built Upon by a Railroad Company — Ejectment by Owner. — Defendant company, without any right, entered upon plaintiffs land and erected a depot thereon. After having allowed the company to occupy the land for five years, plaintiff now brings ejectment. Held, that plaintiff's remedy is confined to dam- ages, the possession of the land not being recoverable on grounds of public policy. L., iV: /4., rt«^ C. /e. iV. Ctf. V. .5^r>&<j/, 36 N. E. Rep. 642 (Ind.). There seems to be no necessity of putting this case on grounds of public policy, for the same decision could be reached by holding that plaintiff had given defendant a license, which he is estopped from revoking after valuable improvements made under it. If the view taken in this case is followed out, it would seem that plaintiff could not maintain ejectment irrespective of his knowledge of or acquiescence in the use of his land. The cases hardly go that length. Wood on Railroads (Minor's ed., 1894), 927. Real Property — Wills — Rule against Perpetuities. — In this case the testator, after reciting the misdeeds of his son, devises property to trustees to be paid to the unborn children of such son, at age of twenty-four in the case of males, and to the female children upon marriage, with an alternative devise in case his son died with- out issue, — which in fact happened. The Circuit Court of West Va. held the whole was void for perpetuity. Held, that the decree should be reversed on the ground that the son having in fact died without issue, the alternative devise should take effect with- out regard to the fact that the other limitation which failed could have been impeached for remoteness. Perkins et al. v. Fisher et al., 59 Fed. Rep. 801 (W. Va.). The decision is undoubtedly correct, and shows a clear knowledge of the rather arbi- trary and refined rules of law on the subject. It is a general proposition that a limita- tion which in itself may prove too remote, is void ab initio, but this is held not to vitiate another limitation dependent on an alternative contingency which must happen, if at all, within the bounds of remoteness. The language of the court in the case oi Jackson V. Phillips, 14 Allen, 572, cited in the report, brings out the point with much clearness. Torts — Dangerous Premises — Trespasser. — A constable entered the defend- ant's building to serve a civil writ against a person whom he supposed to be therein, but who in fact was not there, and fell down a dark stairway. Held, that he is a mere trespasser and cannot recover for his injuries. Blatt v. McBarron, 36 N. E. Rep. 468 (Mass.). The case of an officer with a warrant for arrest is distinguished, and the distinction is a valid one. The public has a direct interest in the immediate apprehension of crim- inals, while in a civil action the parties alone are interested, and the officer acts rather as an agent of the complaining party. Torts — Deceit — Misrepresentation of Value. — Defendant fraudulently altered a written statement of a third party as to the value of certain property. Plain- tiff, who resided at some distance from the property, entered into a contract of sale, relying on this statement. Held, the contract will be set aside. McKftight v. Thovip- so7t, 58 N. W. Rep. 453 (Neb.). The decision is clearly correct. The false representation was concerning the opinion of a third party ; plaintiff acted relying solely on the altered statement ; and the alter- ation was designed to prevent him from examining the property. Torts — Imputed Negligence. — Held, that the negligence of the driver of a private conveyance is imputable to one who is voluntarily driving with him, so as to defeat an action against a third party, whose negligence, together with that of the driver, caused the injuries for which damages are sought. Whittaker v. City of Helena, 35 Pac. Rep. 904 (Mont.). The decision in this case is rested principally on Prideaux v Mineral Point, 43 Wis. 513, where it is laid down that the driver in a case like this is the agent of the one