Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/464

436 plaintiff aftenvards became the assignee of this mortgage ; that in purchasing the note secured by this mortgage plaintiff relied on the abstract prepared by defendant for the purpose of effecting the mortgage loan ; that said abstract did not disclose the true record title; and that plaintiff suffered damage. Held, sustaining defendant's demurrer, that the declaration did not set forth a good cause of action. Tapley v. Wright, 32 S. W. Rep. 1072 (Ark.).

It is clear that defendant is under no contractual liability to plaintiff. If it is true that it is not the usual course of business for the purchaser of a mortgage note to rely on the abstract furnished to the original mortgagee, it is clear that defendant is not liable to the plaintiff in an action sounding in tort. But if it is the usual course of business that one purchasing a mortgage note may and does, on making his purchase, rely on the abstract prepared for the original mortgagee, there is American authority for holding defendant liable in tort. Minority opinion in Savings Bank v. Ward, 100 U. S. 195, at 207; Dickcl v. Abstract Co., 14 S. W. Rep. 896 (Tenn.). See also Telegraph Co. V. Dryburg, 35 Pa. St. 298; Tobin v. Tel. Co., 23 Atl. Rep. 324 (Pa.). Blood Balm Co. V. Cooper, 83 Ga. 457. Contra Savings Bank v. Ward. In England, in any view of the facts of the principal case, defendant's demurrer would be sustained. Peek v. Derry, 14 Appeal Cases, 337; Scholes v. Brook, 63 L. T. 837 ; Le Lievre v. Gould, L. R. (1893), I Q. B. 491.

— —  —  — Plaintiff bank sent the B. bank various claims for collection. After collection, and before remittance to plaintiff, the B. bank failed, and defendant was appointed assignee. Plaintiff sued assignee as a preferred creditor for the amount of the claims so collected, contending that the B. bank held them in trust. Held, that plaintiff should succeed. When a trustee mingled his own funds with those of trust property, the latter being actually represented among his assets, the beneficiary had a preferred claim for the amount of the trust. Winstandley v. Second Bank of Louisville, 41 N. E. Rep. 956 (Ind.). See Notes.

— —  —  — Plaintiff sent a note to the J. bank for collection. When the latter received the note it knew itself to be insolvent, but collected the note before it went into the hands of defendant assignee. Plaintiff filed a preferred claim for the amount of the note. Held, that, as collection was made before actual assignment even though after known insolvency, the J. bank became a debtor, and plaintiff must come in with general creditors. Sayles v. Cox, 32 S. W. Rep. 626 (Tenn.). See.

— — Held, that a bequest to a church, "to be used in solemn masses for the repose of my soul," is equally invalid, whether as a direct bequest to the church, or as creating a charitable use, or as creating a private trust, there being in the latter instance no living beneficiary. The court decreed that the sum should remain in the hands of the executors, although it defeated the testator's wishes, and although the church was willing to perform the intended trust. Festorazzi et al. v. St. Joseph's Catholic Church of Mobile, et al., 18 So. Rep. 394 (Ala.). See.

REVIEWS.

By Elias Menvin, late of the Boston Bar, and Professor in the Law School of Boston University. Edited by H. C. Merwin. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company. 1895. 8vo, pp. xci, 658. "The lectures which compose this book were delivered by Mr. Merwin at the Law School of Boston University," says Mr. H. C. Merwin, the son, in his Preface. "The author drew his illustrations chiefly, though by no means exclusively, from the English Courts, from the Federal Courts, and from the Supreme Court of Massachusetts," as was natural in a lecturer in the Boston University Law School. The "editors," however, of whom there were apparently others than Mr. H. C. Merwin, for the Preface mentions two other than he, have added in brackets the valuable