Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/572

544 544 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. over-insurance, by virtue of his relation as attorney for the party insarec! and in a transaction wholly foreign to the business of the company which it is his duty to trans- act, his knowledge does not estop the company. Union Nat. Bank v. German Ins. Co., 71 Fed. Rep. 473. The general statement that knowledge of the agent is knowledge of the principal means that the knowledge of the agent is so when acquired in a trarsaction which is part of the agency. Knowledge acquired in a wholly collateral proceeding cannot be imputed to the principal. It is on this ground the case rests, and not on the fact that the statements between attorney and client are confidential. In Trentor v. Fot/ien, 49 N. VV. Rep. 129, and in St. Paul his. Co. v. Parsons, 50 N. W. Rep. 240, a full discussion of the subject will he found. Bills and Notes — Innocent Purchaser — Knowledge at Time of Action Brought of an Equitable Defence. — A bill vva> drawn on and accepted by the defendant payable to the drawer, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff, an innocent' pur- chaser. The bill was dishonored at maturity, but before trial was begun in this action the plaintiff learned that between the drawer and the defendant there was a failure of consideration. The plaintiff held at the time of dishonor, and still holds, sufficient funds of the drawer to pay the bill, but neglects to appropriate them and prosecutes this action at the instigation of the drawer. Held, the funds of the drawer in the hands of the plaintiff should be offset against the bill. Van Winkle Machineiy Company v. Citizens' Bank, 33 S. W. Rep. 862 (lex.). The result reached is eminently satisfactory and seems correct. The true ground would seem to be that under the circumstances the drawer became the real debtor, for whom the defendant was a surety, who, when sued by the creditor, is entitled to set off any assets of his principal in the hands of the plaintiff. Bills and Notes — Unaccepted Check. — A bank is not liable to a check- holder in a suit on the check, although it has funds of the drawer more than sufficient to pay the check. The question arose on demurrer. Cincinnati, Hamilton, 6^ Dayton R. K. Co. V. Metropolitan A^at. Bank, 42 N. PI Rep. 700 (Ohio). Ohio thus accords with the majority of jurisdictions ; a few States are contra. 2 Randolph on Commercial Paper, 280; 2 Daniels on Negotiable Instruments, § 1638. See Notes. Conflict of Laws — Domicil — Evidence of Change — Residence at Va- rious Places. — D.'s domicil of origin and birthplace were Scotch. At the age of eleven he went to school in England, remaining there for eight years, but spending vacations in Scotland. He then went to Media for five years, there becoming a priest in the Church of England. He returned to Scotland for six months. For twenty-six years- thereafter he served in eight or more churches in England, spendnig however a year upon the Continent, another in Scotland, and two in Grenada. During all these years, unless abroad, D. spent two or three months in each year in Scotland. In England he lived principally in apartments and in the houses of others, but soon after marriage, in 1872, took a house for three months, and later the lease of another for seven. His wife died in 1891, the question being as to D.'s domicil at the time of her death. Held, that it was Scotch. In re Dunbar, 12 T//e Tunes Law Rep. 153. The court thought that the domicil of origin had never been changed, though the case did not require a decision as to this. The case exhibits a tendency to follow In re Patience, 29 Chan. Div. 976, although its facts would seem to bring it within the decision of /;/ re Craig7iish, L. R. [1892] 3 Chan. 180. American courts have less difficulty in finding a change of domicil. Williams v. Roxlniry, 12 Gray, 21 ; Wilbraham v. Ludlow, 99 Mass. 587 ; Hicks v. Skinner, 72 N. C. i. Constitutional Law — Gettysburg Reservation. — Under an act of Congress providing for monuments and tablets at Gettysburg "for the purpose of preserving the lines of battle at Gettysburg, Pa., and for properly marking with tablets the positions occupied by the various commands," proceedings were begun for the condemnation of land. Held, the act is within the constitutional power of the national legislature. United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry. Co., 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427. See Notes. Contracts — Accord and Satisfaction, — Plaintiff and defendant disagreed as to the amount due the former as commission for a sale. Defendant sent a check for the amount admitted by him to be due plaintiff, and enclosed a voucher, to be signed and returned by plaintiff, acknowledging receipt of the check " in full payment for commissions." Plaintiff kept and used the check, but did not return the voucher. Held, by accepting the check, plaintiff had precluded himself from disputing the fact that the check was full payment. Nassoiy v. Tomlinson et nl., 42 N. K. Rep. 715 (N. Y.). The claim here being for an unliquidated sum, and plaintiff having accepted the