Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/187

159 RECENT CASES, 159 on said street, brought an action to recover the amount paid in. Held, that the money having been paid under compulsion of legal process, could not be recovered back. Aloore v. Vestry of Fulkam (1S95), i Q- B. 399. . This decision shows that the fact that the money was paid under a mistake of fact, does not take the case out of the rule, well established since the case of Marriot v. Hampton (7 T. R. 269), that money paid under pressure of legal process cannot be re- covered back, even though it be against the conscience of defendant to keep it. The decision shows further that the dictum of Lopes, L. J, in Cairdw. Moss, ;^^ Ch. D. 22, 36, seeming to limit this doctrine to cases where the process still stands, is not law. Sales — Pledge— Pledgor Agent of Pledgee. — Plaintiff redelivered bill of lading which he held in pledge, to pledgors, with power to sell as his agent. Pledgors sold to A & Sons, and subsequently failed. Action brought to determine whether plain- tiff, the pledgee, or the creditors of the bankrupt pledgors were entitled to the balance of the purchase money in the hands of A & Sons. Held, that pledgee might constitute pledgor his agent to sell without losing his lien ; and that plaintiff, therefore, was entitled to the money in question. North Western Bank v. Poynter et al. (1S95), -^PP- ^^s. 57. This case, which came up in the House of Lords on an appeal from the Court of Session, Scotland, settles the law for Scotland in accordance with the English and American law on this point. Statute of Limitations — When it Begins to Run — Concealed Tres- pass. — Defendant excavated coal inadvertently under plaintiff's land. Plaintiff had no reasonable means of discovering the trespass, and did not learn of it until seven years afterward. Held^ that in case of trespass to or in a lower stratum, which plaintiff had no reasonable means of discovering. Statute of Limitations does not begin to run until the discovery of the trespass. Lewey ,H. C. Frick Coke Co., 31 Atl. Rep. 261 (Pa.). See Notes. Torts — Deceit. — The officers of F. Bank made four reports to the Comptroller as required by the provisions of the National Banking Act. The officers also published and mailed to plaintiff a statement, not required by law, representing the bank to be in a flourishing condition. All these statements were known by those making them to be false. Plaintiff, believing these statements to be true, and relying on them, discounted a note solely on the security of shares of F. Bank. These shares turned out to be worthless. Held, under these circumstances, F. Bank was not liable for the loss sus- tained by plaintiff. Merchants Bank v. Armstrong, 65 Fed. Rep. 932. • It is submitted that in making and publishing these statements the bank officers were acting within the scope of their authority ; that the deceit was therefore, as regards liability in a civil action, that of the bank itself. It is doubtless true that these statements were not issued for the purpose of being used in the manner in which they were used by plaintiff. It is equally true that had defendants thought, they must have realized that these statements would be used in the manner in which they were used by plaintiff. The court might have held defend- ants liable under these circumstances, citing in support of such decision Bedford v. Bagshaw, 4 H. & N. 538. Torts — Malicious Interference with Business. — The defendant, a delegate of a trade union, induced the plaintiffs' employer to discharge them, his sole object being to injure the plaintiffs. Held, that this was an actionable wrong, whether it involved a breach of contract or not. Flood v. Jackson, 11 The Times Law Rep. 276 (Q. B. D.). Affirmed in the Court of Appeal, 11 The Times Law Rep. 335. The case is a direct decision on the point of malicious interference, all suggestion of conspiracy and breach of contract being put aside. The discussion by the court does not remove the difficul- ties of the case, but probably the best result has been reached. The doctrine is reviewed in a recent note in 8 Harvard Law Review, 499, and seems to be gaining favor everywhere. See Graham v. St. Charles St. R. Co., 16 So. Rep. 806 (La.), in which the same decision is made. Torts — Turntable Case. — Held, that a railroad company maintaining on its land a i)roperly constructed turntable owes no duty to take precautions against injuries which may be suffered by children playing on it. Walsh v. Fitchbicrg Ry. Co., 39 N. E. Rep. 1068 (N. v.), reversing Walsh v. Fitchburg Ry. Co., 28 N. Y." Supp. 1097. See Notes. ^ Trusts — Fraudulent Purchase by Agent. — Plaintiff employed defendant, his attorney-at-law, to purchase an interest from plaintiff's brother. The lawyer paid his own money, and was allowed to take a conveyance in his own name but only by repre-