Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/75

59 RECENT CASES. 59 Bills and Notes — Usury — Conflict of Laws. — Defendant, a resident of Iowa, borrowed money of plaintiff's transferor in New York, and gave a note dated as made in Iowa, but actually made in New York. No place of payment was stated. The rate of interest was stated to be seven per cent, — lawful in Iowa, but usurious in New York. Held, the parties executed this note intending it to be controlled by laws of Iowa, so it is valid and enforceable in that State. Bigelow v. Btirnham, 57 N. W. 865 (Iowa). There is quite a little authority holding, in accord with this case, that when a con- tract is made in one country or State to Ije performed in another, the validity of the contract is to be determined by the law of the latter place. Story, Conflict Law.s, 7th ed. c. 280. Some of the earlier United States Supreme Court cases held this way, and New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York seem to hold this view. Contfa, are later United States cases, — Massachusetts, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Wisconsin. A very good case holding this way is Akers v. Demond, 103 Mass. 318. The view Contra seems correct for no contract has ever arisen, as the law of the State where the contract is made says that such a consideration shall be practically the same as no consideration. Constitutional Law — Power of the Legislature over the Contracts MADE BY Employers with their Employees — Corporations and Natural Persons distinguished. — The Legislature of Arkansas passed an Act requiring corporations, companies, and persons engaged in business of operating or constructing railroads,. . . and contractors and sub-contractors engaged in the construction of any such road, to pay their employees, on the day of discharge, the unpaid wages then earned by them,- at contract price, without abatement or deduction. Held, that the Act was valid in so far as it applied to corporations, but was void as applied to natu- ral persons. Bunn, C. J., dissented, thinking the Act void in toto. Leep v. St. Louis, I. M. &- S. Ry. Co., 25 S. W. Rep. 75 (Ark.). Cases of this nature are becoming more and more common, and the decisions in the different States are not altogether in harmony. The distinction which is made in the above case between natural persons and corporations seems to have no good founda- tion. It would seem that in both cases such an Act is fully within the legislative power, and the advisability of its existence is something with which the courts have no concern. The right to contract, which a man has, is not property, and taking it away in a given case, where it appears to the Legislature that the contracting parties are not on an even footing, would seem to be perfectly constitutional ; i. e., it is difficult to see what clause in the Constitutions, as generally found to exist, would prevent it. It must be admitted, however, that there exists a tendency to favor the unconstitutionality of such Acts. See Commonwealth v. Perry, 155 Mass. 117 [1891]. Contracts — Disclosure of Telegraphic Despatch. — The servants of the defendant company wilfully disclosed the contents of a telegram sent by plaintiffs, who sued to recover the penalty prescribed by a statute requiring messages to be '■ trans- mitted with impartiality and without discrimination." Held, that a fair construction of the statute would not warrant its application to such a case as this ; especially since other statutes existed which expressly provided for recovery of suitable damages by the aggrieved party in case of wilful disclosure, and rendered such disclosure criminal. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Bierhaus et al., 36 N. E. Rep. 161 (Ind.). The case seems to show a just construction of the statutory provisions, and contains no discussion of the rights of parties in such a case in the absence of statute upon the subject. Contracts — Shrvices — Recovery for Part Performance. — X, the maker of a note which had been indorsed by the defendant and subsequently taken up by the plaintiff, contracted by the plaintiff to work for him for a specified time in payment of the note. X subsequently refused to complete his term of service. Held, that while the plaintiff could not recover from the defendant on the note, he had a right of re- covery against X for breach of contract, and was not bound to compensate him for services performed before breach, either under contract or upon a quantum meruit. Timberlake v. Thayer, 14 So. Rep. 446 (Miss.). The latter prt positions seem to be required by previous decisions in the State, and seem also in haimony with the weight of authority elsewhere. See Keener, Quasi Contr., 215, and cases there cited. Criminal Law — Concurrent Jurisdiction. — The defendant, a pilot on the Hudson River, was convicted of manslaughter on an indictment charging him with having, by wilful negligence, guided his vessel into a yacht, causing the death of a per- son on the yacht. Held.X^sxdtX the State courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the